1. The defendant is one of the 86§³ in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the plaintiff.

(a) connect each point of the 6, 7 pages of the Appendix No. 6, 7;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D major 86 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant is the owner of the E large 64 square meters and F large 215 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”).

B. The Defendant, among the Plaintiff’s land, installs a fence (hereinafter “the instant fence”) on the ground that connects each point of the 6 and 7 points of the attached Form No. 7, and occupies and uses the part (A) part (a) in the line that connects each point of the 2, 5, 6, 7, and 2 of the attached Form No. 2, 5, 7, and 6,000 in sequence, along the passage.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, entry and video of Gap's evidence 1 through 8, Eul's evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser G, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the fence of this case installed in the plaintiff's land by breaking the plaintiff's land and deliver the part of the (A) land to the plaintiff, unless there are other special circumstances.

B. Decision 1 on the Defendant’s defense on the Defendant’s ground of the defense of the statute of limitations for the acquisition by prescription was constructed from around 1970 to the point where the building without permission was located, and the wall of the above unauthorized building was installed in the part where the wall of the instant fence was located. However, around May 2003, the Defendant purchased the land among the Defendant’s land and constructed a new building on the Defendant’s land and constructed a new building on the Defendant’s land, and installed a fence instead of putting the wall of the above unauthorized building to separate the boundary between the Plaintiff’s land and the Plaintiff’s land. As above, the former owner of the Defendant’s land commenced the possession of the land in good faith, peace, and public performance on the part of the Plaintiff’s land, and the Defendant succeeded to the possession of the former owner for 20 years in combination with the period of the former owner’s possession.