(a) Annex 1 drawings out of Annex C 118 square meters of C Forest land in Jeju, 118 square meters, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 1.

A. On October 2, 1987, the Plaintiff’s attached E purchased C forest land 264 square meters and completed the registration of ownership transfer. On June 23, 2000, the land was divided into C forest land 118 square meters, D forest land 7 square meters, and F, and D was converted into a road on May 2, 2012.

B. On May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of inheritance by agreement division with respect to Jeju City and D, and on May 4, 2012, the Defendant purchased GJ large scale 258 square meters and H large scale 24 square meters and its ground buildings, and completed the registration of ownership transfer by purchasing them on May 4, 2012.

C. At present, the Defendant currently owns a building on the volume of 12 square meters in a part on which a drawing drawing is indicated in attached Form 1 among Jeju-si, and each fence is owned on the volume of 7 square meters in a part on which the same drawing is indicated. Of Jeju-si, the Defendant owns a fence (hereinafter “instant dispute part” by adding up the parts on which the above building and each fence are located) on the part on which a drawing drawing is indicated in attached Form 2 in attached Form 4.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), the result of the request for surveying and appraisal by this court on the Jeju branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation, and the determination on the overall purport of the pleadings and the cause of the request for judgment on the request for extradition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant occupies the dispute part of the case of this case owned by the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to remove the buildings and fences in the dispute part of this case, and deliver the above land.

As to the defense of the judgment on the acquisition by prescription against the defendant's possession, the buildings and fences on the ground of the dispute part of this case were installed on June 23, 1992, and until now, the defendant and the previous owners occupied the dispute part of this case in peace and openly with their intent to own the dispute part from June 23, 1992. Thus, the acquisition by prescription was completed on June 23, 2012 at the expiration of 20 years thereafter.

Therefore, the defendant has a legitimate right to possess the dispute portion of this case.

Judgment

A.