1. Facts of recognition;

A. Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) owned D, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of E on November 5, 2001, and thereafter the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of F on April 11, 2008.

On January 30, 2009, F completed the registration of ownership preservation on the second G building No. 201, which is an aggregate building on the Plaintiff’s land, in its own name, and on the same day the ownership registration on the Plaintiff’s land was completed. The Plaintiff, as a sectional owner under Article 201 of the said second G building, completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 9, 201, and acquired the ownership right on the Plaintiff’s land 29.1/109 of the Plaintiff’s land.

B. On May 24, 1966, H newly built a house on the land of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City I large 72 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land and acquired the Defendant’s land, following J on June 18, 197, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant’s husband’s husband on January 20, 1987. On January 20, 197, the ownership transfer registration was completed under L’s name on the deceased K and L’s cancellation on March 27, 2009, and the ownership was returned to the deceased K again due to the cancellation of the agreement between the deceased K and L on March 27, 2009. As the deceased by the deceased, the Defendant acquired the ownership due to inheritance by division on August 15, 2009.

C. The Defendant’s land-based housing unit intrudes on the part of 24 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), which connects each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the Plaintiff’s land, in sequence, in the order of the indication of the attached drawing among the Plaintiff’s land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the principal claim, the Defendant, as an owner of 29.1 shares out of the Plaintiff’s land, sought the exclusion of the disturbance of ownership as an act of preserving the jointly owned property, barring special circumstances.