1. The Defendant indicated in the attached drawing No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1, among the 95 square meters of land D miscellaneous land in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 1991, Plaintiff B succeeded to 1/2 of the 95 square meters of the land of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff Company acquired the ownership of 1/2 of the said land on April 19, 2019.

B. Around July 16, 1979, the instant building was newly constructed. Since February 6, 1991, E owned a building adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant inherited the said building on December 19, 201.

C. Of the instant building, the part of the fences and entrances is invaded by the instant land owned by the Defendant, such as the indication of the attached drawing, and the size is 15 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the parts of the building on the ground of 15 square meters in the attached drawing indication 1, 2, 3, 4 and 15 square meters in sequence among the land in this case among the land in this case, and deliver the land to the plaintiffs, unless there are special circumstances.

B. On July 16, 1976, the Defendant asserted that the building of this case was newly constructed on and around July 16, 1976, and that the former husband of this case occupied the building of this case without knowledge that E, who acquired the ownership of the building of this case, infringed upon the land owned by the Plaintiffs. Since the Defendant inherited E, the prescription period for acquisition of possession on the part of the above intrusion was completed.

The possessor’s possession is presumed to be possession frequently (see Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). The possessor’s possession of a building on his/her own land, which did not accurately verify the boundary of the adjoining land, can readily be readily concluded that the possession of the adjoining land is not based on his/her intention, insofar as it was due to an error, insofar as it was caused by such error.