A. Of the 96 square meters in the attached Form 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 2, among the attached Form 96 square meters in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a 2,600 square meters and E large 119 square meters and C large 96 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner of a building of Fromen block structure, 152 square meters and 72.72 square meters and 39.6 square meters and 39.6 square meters and buildings of Siromen block structure and 72 square meters and 39.6 square meters and 19.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) adjacent to the said land owned by the Plaintiff.

B. Of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, the instant building owned by the Defendant is installed on the ground of 13 square meters on the part of “A” in line with each point of the attached Table 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 2, among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant building”). The Defendant occupied and used the “A” portion of 17 square meters in line with each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, in sequence, of the land indicated in the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, Evidence No. 2-1, 2-2, and Evidence No. 3

2. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant “A” portion of the building and deliver the instant “A” portion of the site to the Plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the exclusion of disturbance based on ownership.

The defendant alleged that the building of this case was newly constructed with the consent of G from the owner at the time, and that the plaintiff also purchased the building of this case with the knowledge that the building of this case exists on the land owned by the plaintiff at the time of purchase from H, G, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. This circumstance alone is not sufficient to oppose the plaintiff.

3. Thus, we conclude that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.