A. The Plaintiff and wife D are owners who jointly own one half of each share of the total area of 194 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of the building with a size of 181 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “Defendant building”) adjacent to the instant land in Geumcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

C. Around 2006, the Defendant extended the Defendant’s building around A, and thereafter, the Defendant’s building, in turn, was affected by the part (B) in the ship that connects each point of (a) part of the attached map Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 1 among the instant land, and the part (b) in the ship that connects each point of (b) 2, 3, 4, and 2 of the same map No. 1, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the result of this court's request for surveying and appraisal to the previous branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The right to claim exclusion of interference based on the ownership of the claim is an act of preserving jointly owned property and can be exercised even by one of the co-owners. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to remove the (B) section of the building connecting each point of (a) part of the land of this case, which is one square meter, and 1 square meter of the land of this case, and 2, 3, 4, and 2 square meter of the land of this case, among the co-owners of this case, each point of (b) part of the land of this case, which is connected in sequence 1, 2, 4, 5, and 1.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) A, one of the co-owners of the instant land, consented to the Defendant’s extension of the Defendant’s building around 2006. 2) The Defendant, for a period of not less than 20 years, occupied the part of the instant land in peace and openly with the intent to own the part of the instant land, thereby completing the statute of limitations for the possession of the said part of the instant land.

B. In order for the Defendant to oppose the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground of D’s consent to the extension of the Defendant’s building, it is not sufficient that D merely consented to the extension of the Defendant’s building.