1. The Defendant, among the land size of 876 square meters in Yasan City, in sequence, has each point indicated in the attached Form 2 Map No. 11, 12, 14, 13, and 11.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that part of the warehouse of a prefabricated panel owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) is installed on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks to remove the said building and deliver the said land to the Defendant.

B. According to the records in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 3, the result of appraiser D’s survey and appraisal, and the fact-finding on appraiser, the land in this case is owned by the plaintiff, and the fact-finding on appraiser’s appraiser’s land in this case, and the warehouse of the prefabricated-type panel owned by the defendant is installed on three square meters in the ship that connects each of the items in attached Form No. 2-11, 12, 14, 13, and 11 among the land in this case in sequence.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to remove the warehouse of this case on the ground of 3 square meters in part on the above ship among the land of this case and deliver the above land to the Plaintiff, barring special

(A) On January 25, 1983, the Defendant asserted that: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant occupied the instant land in excess of three square meters in the above part on the ship; and (b) on January 25, 1983, the part of the Plaintiff’s assertion exceeding three square meters in excess of three square meters in the above part on the ship is without merit; (c) on January 25, 1983, the Defendant purchased the Defendant’s side E from F. 349 square meters in the above part on the land; and (d) around that time, the Defendant constructed a new warehouse with a 93.72 square meters of a tobacco and slive lub’s roof, a single house on the above land, and installed the instant warehouse together with the intent to own, thereby, the Defendant’s defense that the prescription for acquisition of possession on January 25,

However, each of the evidence mentioned above and evidence evidence Nos. 1 are insufficient to recognize that the deceased E continued possession of part of the land of this case for 20 years by installing the warehouse of this case on January 25, 1983, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the images of evidence No. 1, according to the external shape of the warehouse of this case, it is a building for which about 30 years have passed since its new construction was conducted.