1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (i) The Plaintiff and Nonparty D shared the 4,284 square meters and 1,765 square meters prior to the merger from April 1981 to the date of the merger, and engaged in the falsing industry at each one’s stable.

The Plaintiff and D agreed on March 11, 1983 that D’s co-ownership is to resolve the co-ownership relationship with the Defendant on the ground that they sold shares in land and stables, and that the said land was combined, and then the land was divided as a stable boundary, but the land was further divided into 642 square meters in order to achieve the balance of shares.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant of D’s co-owned D shares of the Plaintiff and D prior to 1983 square meters D G G G of 2,334 square meters, all of which were 2,975 square meters, and 642 square meters prior to 1983 and F MM, respectively.

C. However, the building on G ground owned by the Defendant is 174m2 out of the land owned by the Plaintiff, such as the purport of the claim and the attached appraisal sheet.

【Evidence A】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 19, Eul Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and the result of appraisal

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant building is 174 square meters of the land owned by the Plaintiff, thus seeking removal of the relevant building and delivery of the land.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (i.e., the Defendant purchased G land and stable as the phenomenon and occupied for 20 years including the part of the instant crime alleged by the Plaintiff, and completed the statute of limitations for possession.

Shebly, the plaintiff's husband's non-party I divided the land according to the stable boundary, but it is in violation of the principle of no-competing.

C. The Plaintiff’s rebuttal (i) around March 1997, the Defendant occupied the Plaintiff’s land in the process of newly constructing around 1999 after the previous stable was destroyed by fire, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant occupied the part of the instant intrusion for 20 years.

Even if the Defendant occupied the part of the instant crime for twenty (20) years, the part of the instant crime is reasonable, and thus, it constitutes the possession of the owner by the nature of the source of title.

The plaintiff was in the process of division as D, and the defendant transferred the process of division to D.