Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On March 27, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the Plaintiff’s land and constructed a house and a warehouse on that ground.

B. On September 4, 1987, the Defendant acquired ownership of D 977 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land due to inheritance by agreement division, and constructed a house (hereinafter “instant building”), warehouse, and stable on that ground, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on May 12, 2003.

(E) No later than 100 livestock penss have been destroyed.

Afterwards, the Plaintiff requested the Korea Land Information Corporation (Korea Land Survey Corporation before its modification) to conduct a boundary survey of the Plaintiff’s land and Defendant’s land, and as a result of the survey on April 17, 2004, the building outer wall or fence installed by the Defendant on the boundary part above was partly infringed on the Plaintiff’s land.

At the time of the boundary restoration survey conducted by the Korea Land and Information Corporation, the part “to not raise an objection within approximately 30 cm from the wall of the building, and up to the time of the new construction D,” written by the original Defendant’s signature, respectively, and at the bottom of the report, the part “related to the objection” is indicated as follows: “On April 23, 2004, visiting the site along with the head of the branch office by visiting the site and closing it upon receiving an application for withdrawal.”

According to the results of the cadastral status survey, part of the wall and outer wall of the building of this case is 13 square meters in a ship which connects each point of the Plaintiff’s land indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

(2) The Plaintiff’s land, as above, alleged to the effect that only the Defendant-owned wall exists on the land in the dispute of this case, including “the instant land within the boundary,” “the instant fence,” and “the instant building outer wall of this case,” and “the instant building outer wall of this case on the land in the dispute of this case. However, considering the progress of the said boundary restoration survey, the result of the cadastral status survey, and the current status photograph of the instant building (Evidence No. 5, etc.), it was connected not only to the Defendant-owned wall, but also to the wall.