1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the following judgment is added to the plaintiff's new argument at this court under the 5th page 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

With respect to this case, the Plaintiff conducted a boundary survey around March 17, 1995, which was before the completion of the prescriptive acquisition of the land of this case, on or before March 17, 1995. The Defendant asserted that this case’s building cannot be deemed to have been acquired by prescription since he knew of the location of the Plaintiff’s land near the boundary of the land of this case. In full view of the Plaintiff’s entries and arguments, the boundary survey on the land of this case was conducted at the time of assertion of the Plaintiff and the Defendant from around that time, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant knew of the fact that there was a dispute over the boundary of the building of this case’s land of this case, but the person who occupied another’s land adjacent to the first time of possession was aware of the fact that the land of this case was not owned by himself or that the boundary was revealed as a result of the cadastral survey, and that there was a mutual dispute over this, the Defendant’s possession of the land of this case cannot be seen to have been converted to other possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20036Da1363613.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.