1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. A. Of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff on the basis of the facts.

B. The fact that each part of the land is used as a passage through a road package, and the fence of the Defendant’s above ground house (hereinafter “instant house”) located on the land is installed, or that there is no dispute between the parties, or that there is a evidence of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 3, or the entire purport of the argument as a result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation in this Court, can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant is out of the land of this case.

B. On the part of the land, to claim that the fence of the instant house is installed on the land and that the site is occupied, and to remove the above passage and fence against the Defendant and to deliver the site.

B. First of all, as to whether the Defendant occupied the portion of the land A.B as the site for passage, the owner of the land A. B. is the person who performed the packing work into the site for passage, provided it for the passage, and maintained and managed the land. In light of each description of the evidence B-4 through 7, and the fact inquiry into the Kim Sea market in this court, it is not sufficient to recognize the Defendant as the owner of the land, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion against the Defendant seeking removal of the passage road and delivery of the site is without merit. (2) The Defendant (f) as to whether the building occupies the portion of the land as the fence of the instant house, since it cannot exist under the social social norms, the building is the owner of the building, and in this case, the owner of the building or the building actually occupies the site of the building.