1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 28, 1994, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on September 28, 1994 with respect to the land of 504 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On April 11, 1989, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer made on March 2, 1989 with respect to the land adjacent to the previous D prior to the instant subdivision (hereinafter “the adjacent land prior to the instant subdivision”).

After February 16, 1993, the adjoining land prior to the instant subdivision was divided into 743 square meters, etc. (hereinafter “the adjoining land”).

C. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, there is a fence of cement brick structure built by the Defendant in order to connect each point of the following points, among the land of this case, which are indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, and the part No. 29 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “part No. 29 square meters in the ship”) connected in sequence 1 through 11 and 1

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), and Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the result of this court's request for surveying and appraisal to the Yancheon-gun Branch of the Korea Intellectual Property Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land, seeks the removal of a fence constructed on the land in the part of (b) part of the instant land, the delivery of the part of the land in the ship, and the return of unjust enrichment from the possession of the land in the part of (b) the ship.

As to this, the Defendant asserted on April 11, 2009 that, since the Defendant occupied the part of the land in (b) inside the ship from April 11, 1989, the acquisition by prescription for possession on the said part of the land was completed and that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including each number), the witness E’s testimony, and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the Defendant purchased the adjoining land prior to the instant subdivision on March 2, 1989 and under its own name on April 11, 1989.