A. On February 18, 2013, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 971 square meters of land C in Yongsan-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The part of the (Ga) portion of the building in the ship connecting each point of 13, 14, 15, 18, 12, and 13 in the annexed appraisal drawing is part of the building in the ship owned by the defendant, and the part (Na) area of 4m2 connected each point of 15, 16, 17, 11, 18, and 15 in the order of 15, 16, 17, 18, and 15 of the same drawing, which is part of the building owned by the defendant, and the part (c) portion of 1m2 connected each point of 19,20, 21, 10, and 19 of the same drawing is part of the apartment house owned by the defendant, and the land of this case is invaded.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, results of appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation of this Court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove the above part, which is the part that infringed on the land by the Plaintiff, the owner of the land of this case, and deliver the above part to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that since the plaintiff acquired the land of this case with knowledge that the building owned by the defendant was in violation of the land of this case, the defendant's assertion that he accepted the above-mentioned burden of restricting the use of and benefit from the land of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge

In addition, the defendant stated in the written reply that Article 242 (2) of the Civil Code is Article 237 (2) of the Civil Code, but the above provision is half of the costs in the case where the land owner installs a boundary mark or a fence, and both parties bear the costs in proportion to the area of the land, and the measurement cost is not a provision that the defendant bears in proportion to the area of the

land adjoining to the building according to paragraph (1).