2. The appeal costs.

It is reasonable to view that the owner of a building knew at the time of the construction that the building was built to the extent that it was caused by mistake that part of the adjoining land was infringed on by mistake, so long as it was caused by mistake, it cannot be readily concluded that the possession of the adjoining land is not based on the intention of ownership. However, in general, since a person who intends to build a new building on his own land intends to build a new building on his own land after confirming in advance the location and area of the site where the building was built on the site by drawing, etc. the location and area of the building site is usually going back to the construction. Thus, if the area of the sunken area exceeds the ordinarily permissible construction level and exceeds the reasonable degree, it is reasonable to view that the owner of the building was aware that the building was infringed on the adjoining land. Accordingly, the possession of the adjoining land due to the intrusion cannot be said to be a possession with the intention of ownership in view

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da42977, 42984, 42991 delivered on December 8, 2000, etc.). In full view of the results of the fact-finding conducted by the Defendant on the witness I of the first instance court, the witness I of the first instance court, the second instance court, and the head of the government registry office of the Jung-gu District Court, each fact-finding conducted by the Defendant on the 3, 7, 8 evidence No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 3 of the first instance court, the second instance court’s testimony of the first instance court, and the second instance court’s fact-finding conducted on the 1979 square meters of Sejong-do-ro 178 square meters constructed by the Defendant on the 1979, and the second 282.02 square meters of a livestock shed and the roof of the wall were altered into a steel pipe tank around 195.