A. The Plaintiff’s ownership is the 187 square meters prior to Jeju-si and 137 square meters prior to Jeju-si (hereinafter “the instant land”). B. The Defendant occupied and used the portion of “B” in the instant land, which connects each point of the 6, 7, 8, and 6 square meters, among the instant land No. 1, the part of “B” (hereinafter “the instant land No. 1”) and the 10, 11, 16, and 10 square meters among the instant land No. 2, which connects each point of the 10, 16, and 10 square meters in sequence, among the instant land No. 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 2; the result of this court's commission of surveying and appraisal to the Jeju branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the land Nos. 1 and 2 in possession and use to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land Nos. 1 and 2 in the absence of special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is alleged to the effect that it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to file the instant claim with the assertion of only his/her own right while occupying and using a more area than the Defendant’s bed area by breaking the boundary of 562m2 in Jeju-si E, Jeju-si, which is owned by the Defendant. However, there is a special circumstance that the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 may prevent the Plaintiff from filing the request for extradition.

It is difficult to regard the plaintiff's claim as an abuse of right, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.