1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 26, 1990, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s name on the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju. Among them, six square meters was subdivided into Seo-gu, Gwangju on July 14, 201, and again, on November 7, 2014, the said D large-scale 45 square meters was incorporated into the said C large-scale 96 square meters.

B. On September 9, 1988, the Defendant purchased a house of 37.62 square meters in the name of the cement tank and branch of cement brick, cement brick structure and branch of the ground, and a house of 37.62 square meters in the name of the wife, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of a sales contract with F on June 20, 202. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under each of the Defendant’s names on July 22, 2002.

Meanwhile, since the defendant completed the move-in report as of October 12, 1994, he has resided in the above real estate until the date of the completion of the pleadings in this case.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion as to the issue of the instant case is that the Defendant, a Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff, engaged in the construction of the board roof building on the ground that: (a) part of 7 square meters inside the ship connected each point of (Ga) in sequence of subparagraph (a), (b), (c), (c), (d), (e), (v), (g), (g), (i) and (g), (g), (g) and illegally occupied the said 7 square meters by planting each item of the claim as stated in the purport of the instant case; (b) therefore, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should remove the building that intrudes the Plaintiff's ownership, as well as deliver the affected site, and return the amount of rent equivalent to the leased site as unjust enrichment.

On the contrary, the Defendant’s wall installed between the Plaintiff’s above site from the time of purchase of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 179 square meters and its ground building in the name of Sinnam-do to the present day is maintained as it is. Thus, the Defendant did not have committed the above seven square meters of the Plaintiff’s assertion without permission, and even if not, it did not know of the above intrusion from the time of purchase, and 20 years or more.