1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for land transfer with Suwon District Court Branch Branching 2015Kadan22054, and the said court rendered a judgment on June 9, 2016 that “the Defendant removed the opening of the part inside the ship connected the Plaintiff with each of the items indicated in the attached Table 8, 9, 10, 11, and 8, and removed each of the said drawings indicating the same area, and the (a) part of the instant land is handed over.”

B. The Defendant filed an appeal with the Suwon District Court No. 2016Na62573 against the above judgment of the first instance court, but withdrawn the appeal on November 10, 2017, and the said judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive.

C. In accordance with the above judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant removed one square meter and ventilation hole on the land of this case.

[Evidence Evidence: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, No. 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(i) entry or video and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion without permission installed a septic tank in the underground part of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, which is the land owned by the Plaintiff, and installed on the ground a septic tank, a fireworks tree, a hack pipe, etc. on the ground, and occupied the part of the instant land, the Defendant is obligated to remove the said septic tank, a septic tank, a ventilation pipe, a stick tree, a hack pipe, etc., and deliver the part of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion solely based on the written evidence evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in view of the result of the commission of survey and appraisal to appraiser E and the purport of the entire pleadings of this court, the Plaintiff’s assertion is recognized as having been located within a size of 487m2 in the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-gu, the land owned by the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be recognized.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.