1. The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) the 5,841m2, located in Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun;

(a)each point of 40, 41, 42, and 40 of the Annexed Drawings.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land in E, F, and G located adjacent to the said land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant land”), E, F, and the Plaintiff is the owner of the land located in E, F, and G located adjacent to the said land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Defendant’s land”).

B. Since around 2009, the Defendant purchased the Defendants’ land, set up or laid a waterway on the part abutting on the instant land and the Defendants’ land, and part of the waterway or waterway was installed or laid, respectively, in the part (b) and (c) of the attached drawing indicating that part of the waterway or waterway invaded the instant land, and in the part (d) of the same drawing indicating the same drawing.

[Attachment of the above (b), (c), and (d) parts collectively referred to as "the waterway of this case"] / [based on recognition] / Each entry of Gap Nos. 1-6 (including a Serial number), the result of the appraisal commission to the branch offices of the Korea National Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant, who has established and managed the waterway in this case and occupied the part of the land, is obligated to deliver the part of the land to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land and remove the waterway installed on the ground.

(3) The defendant's assertion that "the waterway of this case only belongs to the defendant's land and does not infringe on the land of this case," as a result of the appraisal entrustment to the Korea Land Information Corporation (hereinafter "Korea Land Information Corporation"). 3. The defendant's defense is asserted to the purport that "the defendant's request for delivery and removal of this case constitutes abuse of rights."

① However, if the area of the instant land possessed by the instant waterway is combined with the area, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff or other residents are using the instant waterway only with the evidence submitted by the Defendant, and ③ this is difficult.