1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the instant land and the above building (hereinafter “instant land”) and the Defendant is the owner of the land of 303 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff’s father E purchased, around 1945, approximately 40 square meters of the portion inside the instant land and the instant building, which successively connected each point of the instant land and the instant land from F, and around 1, 1945, the Plaintiff purchased approximately 1,2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, and 1960 square meters of the portion inside the instant land, which was owned by the Defendant, with the Defendant’s intention to occupy the instant land and the instant land owned by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff purchased approximately 26 square meters of the portion inside the instant land (hereinafter “the instant fence”) connected each point in sequence with the Defendant’s Manman-gun-gun, Mancheon-gun, Mancheon-gun, Mancheon-gun, 1981.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land for the instant purpose to the Plaintiff on December 31, 1980 due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

Around June 2015, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the instant fence; and (b) required the cost of KRW 108 million to restore the instant fence; and (c) as such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 108 million and the damages for delay as compensation for tort.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is not sufficient to acknowledge the existence of the wall of this case on the line that connects each point of E and 1, 2, and 3 in sequence from the 1960s, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant collapsed the wall of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s land for the purpose of this case is concerned.