1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 28, 200, the Plaintiff is an owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and its ground.

B. On August 12, 2005, the Defendant is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D large-scale 86 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “Defendant building”) adjacent thereto.

C. On May 12, 197, G, November 25, 1987, H, and February 22, 1995, the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s ownership on March 28, 200 with respect to the Plaintiff’s land. After the construction on November 10, 1966, the Defendant acquired the Plaintiff’s ownership through J on July 5, 1972, J on May 12, 1973, K on April 29, 197, M on December 30, 197, M on February 5, 197, N on April 26, 197, and P on March 205, 2005.

Of the Plaintiff’s land in this case, the part (b) part (b) of 13 square meters in a ship (hereinafter “instant land”) which connects 8, 5, 10, 9, and 8 with the indication of the attached drawing among the land in this case, was built by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including each number in case of additional number), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the above facts revealed that the defendant, the owner of the building of this case, who was the owner of the building of this case, who infringed on the land of this case and constructed the land of this case without title. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff, the owner of the building of this case, who was the owner of the building of this case, has the duty to remove the part of the building of this case, and deliver the land of this case and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for using and making profits from the land of this case.

3. Determination as to the defendant's defense to complete the prescriptive acquisition

A. The defendant's defense of the parties 1 was newly constructed on November 10, 1966, and the acquisition by prescription was completed around November 10, 1986, and at the same time, the above building was the owner of the building.