The Plaintiff is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu 317.3 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and its ground housing (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s housing”), and the Defendant is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu 320.7 square meters adjacent to the above land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and its ground housing (hereinafter “Defendant’s housing”).

Of the drawings (attached Form 1), the area indication at the bottom of the left-hand side in the section 0.2 square meters (attached Form 1) connected in order to each point of 7, 8, 12, 13, and 7 among the defendant's housing (attached Form 1) is a clerical error, and the area indication at the bottom of the left-hand side in the drawings is 1.2 square meters in the order of each point of 7,8, 12, 13, and 7.

The main part of the main gate roof (hereinafter “instant roof”) built on the ground of 1.2 square meters in the part (b) in the ship connecting each point of 6,9,10,11, and 6 of drawings, such as the main gate part of the main gate (hereinafter “instant main gate columns”) built on the ground, is installed by erosioning the Plaintiff’s land.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, as to Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the determination of the main claim for the main claim for the determination of the main claim for the plaintiff's land, the removal of the roof of the main claim and the transfer of the land, which the plaintiff is constructed on the plaintiff's land, shall be examined first as follows.

The gist of the Defendant’s main defense is that the Defendant had been constructed on the Plaintiff’s land by asserting that the part of the wall and gate female, which was part of the Defendant’s housing, was built on the part of the Plaintiff’s land as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Kadan8258, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking its removal, and received a favorable judgment on January 14, 2016, and the judgment became final

(hereinafter referred to as “previous lawsuit”). Removal in the previous lawsuit shall be made.