1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the cause of claim;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land on April 5, 2007, and the Defendant is the owner of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant is the owner of D, Dong-dong, Hadong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. As stated in the purport of the claim, part of the building of this case newly constructed by the Defendant on February 22, 2005 affected part of the land of this case, such as the indication of drawings (A) and (b), and the Defendant occupied and used the relevant part without permission.

C. The Defendant is obligated to remove and deliver the relevant part of the ground buildings indicated in the attached Form (a) and (b) to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 5, 2007, which the Plaintiff acquired the instant land to the date of complete delivery of the part (a) and (b).

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for judgment is premised on that the instant building was on the ground of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff.

However, it is difficult to recognize that the instant building violated the instant land only with the evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) The court requested the Plaintiff to prove that the instant building violated the instant land, and the Plaintiff applied for the survey and appraisal. However, the Plaintiff did not pay the appraisal fees in advance, and the Plaintiff did not proceed with the procedure, such as prepayment of the appraisal fees, even in the court’s repeated demand for proof). The Plaintiff’s claim premised on the premise that the instant building violated the instant land cannot be accepted.