1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the reasoning of this case is as follows. The reasoning of this court concerning this case is as follows. The judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance under the following two. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

1) As to the claim for the acquisition by prescription on the registry, the summary of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant occupies the part of the real estate of this case (hereinafter "land in dispute of this case").

(D) At present, the Defendant-owned land is 440 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “D land”).

(2) The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the land in this case was part of D’s land, not the instant real estate, before the alteration of its intellectual area, and that the land in this case was occupied from July 3, 1990 by the owner G immediately preceding owner of D’s land. As such, before April 24, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate, and the Defendant purchased D’s land from G, the ownership of the instant land was also acquired. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on April 24, 2008, the acquisition of the instant real estate after the completion of the acquisition by prescription was deemed null and void. 2) Accordingly, according to the purport of the entire entries and arguments in No. 1, No. 2-1, No. 8, and No. 9, the boundary of the instant real estate adjacent to D’s real estate, and the alteration of the area of the land in this case’s land in this case’s possession was made from GD’s land size to 40.