1. The defendant, among the land size of 457 square meters in Gwangju City, has each point of the attached Form 11,27,28,29,30,11 among the land size of 457 square meters in Gwangju City.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a co-owner of 3/13 of shares in relation to Cand 457 square meters in Gwangju City (hereinafter “instant land”) and detached houses with the second floor above the ground.

B. The Defendant is each owner of D large 90 square meters, E large 185 square meters, and one-story neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant neighboring buildings”) adjacent to the instant land in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff, the co-owner of the land of this case, who is the judgment as to the cause of the claim of this case. The plaintiff asserts that since the part of the adjacent building of this case owned by the defendant, among the neighboring building of this case, the part of the ground reinforced concrete building of this case, which is 11,27,28,29, 30, 30,000 square meters of the ground board, connected with each of the items of 19,20,21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 9, 8, 19, is against the land of this case, the part of the ground reinforced concrete building of this case and 12 square meters of the roof (hereinafter referred to as "the part of this case") are connected with each of the items of 11,27, 28, 29, 30, and 11 in sequence, the part of the land of this case shall be removed and the land of this case shall be removed.

The plaintiff is the co-owner of the land of this case and the defendant is the owner of the adjacent building of this case. According to the results of the request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation and the purport of the whole pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the part of the adjacent building of this case is invaded by the land of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the part of the crime and deliver the site to the plaintiff, who is the co-owner of the land of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of prescriptive acquisition by the Defendant was that F, the former owner of the instant neighboring building, around 1994, occupied the site in peace and public performance with the intention to own the building for 20 years. The Defendant on February 10, 2015.