A. Of the land size of 326 square meters in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, the water tank 2 square meters in the attached Form (A) shall be located on the ground.

A. The Plaintiff’s real estate owned by Jindo-gun C, Jindo-gun (hereinafter “the instant land”) and the 315 square meters of a fish farm (hereinafter “the instant land”) are real estate owned by the Plaintiff.

B. Of the instant land No. 1, there are 2 square meters on the ground indicated in the annexed drawing(A), and among the instant land No. 2, there are 91 square meters on the ground of the following: (a) indicated in the annexed drawing(s) by the Defendant; (b) indicated in the annexed drawing(s) 1; (c) 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 99, 99, 900, 91 square meters on the ground of the parts of the instant land, which are linked in sequence 1 to each of the items of the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 5, and 6, the result of verification by this court, the result of appraisal by appraiser E of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant collected 2 square meters of water tank 2 square meters on the ground of the land No. 1 and 2 in this case, who is the owner of the land of this case, and removed the housing of this case on the ground of the land No. 2 in this case, and is obligated to deliver each of the above land

3. The Defendant’s assertion and its determination as to the Defendant’s assertion are: (a) the Defendant established G and the Plaintiff’s lux F et al., and the management company required to build the instant house on the ground of the instant land; (b) the Defendant newly built the instant land at the Defendant’s expense; (c) the groundwater was developed on the land No. 1 and installed a water tank; and (d) the said groundwater has the nature of common well-known that three households around the Defendant, other than the Defendant, use as drinking water; (b) it constitutes an abuse of rights for the Plaintiff to seek removal on the ground that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant land No. 1 and No. 2 without a plan to develop real estate or build a new building; and (c) there was an agreement corresponding to the creation of superficies between the Defendant and the Plaintiff at the time of constructing the instant housing, and thus,