1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The attached appraisal marks 1,2,3,4,10, and 1, among the area of 850 square meters in Ansan-si, shall be in sequenceed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) from around September 15, 1983, owned C Dae-si 850 square meters and D 575 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On February 3, 1989, the Defendant acquired E large-scale 248 square meters adjacent to the instant land on or around February 3, 1989, and completed the registration for the preservation of ownership on the land above the instant land, thereby completing the registration for the preservation of ownership of the mentmenb block block 106.69 square meters of multi-story housing (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. Part of the wall and part of the warehouse of a prefabricated-type house among the instant building are the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land in which the part of the wall and part of the warehouse of the prefabricated-type house are 9m2 and 18m2, indicated in the separate drawing (hereinafter “the part of the instant land subject to recognition”) and the part of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the part of the instant land subject to intrusion-type”)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the judgment of the plaintiff's cause of claim infringed part of the land of this case owned by the plaintiff without any title, the defendant is obligated to remove the affected part of this case and deliver the land to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant had occupied the part of the instant crime from the time when he owned the instant building for not less than 20 years with the intention to own it, and therefore, the Defendant did not have a duty to remove and deliver the said part upon completion of the prescription period. However, it is difficult to recognize that the pictures and images of the airline margin of No. 1, attached to the written reply from March 7, 2019, carried out by the Plaintiff from the time when the Plaintiff was constructing the instant building.

Rather, according to the images of the evidence No. 2-1 to No. 9-9 and the evidence No. 1, the plaintiff newly constructed fences and warehouses on the outer wall of the previous house owned by around 2016 (in the case of air photographs, around 2015), to the outer wall of the prefabricated-type panel, which affected the boundary of the land of this case, and the plaintiff demanded restoration of the part against the defendant several times since that time.