1. The main office of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The attached appraisal map No. 6, 7, 8, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 shall be marked with C road No. 137 square meters in the Gu Government.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and D shared the instant land in their respective shares of shares of Plaintiff 133.7/137 and Defendant 3.3/137.

B. On the land adjacent to the instant land, there are five-story buildings of reinforced concrete structure sloping roof owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of 627 square meters adjacent to the instant land.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and D seeking the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on the part of “b” portion on the ship connected with each point of the attached Form 1 drawings No. 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 2, among the instant land in this case, with the court. However, this court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on March 31, 2015 on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the possession for the completion of the prescriptive acquisition continues (2014da1027), and the Defendant appealed against it, but the appeal was dismissed.

(2015Na4802) After November 20, 2015, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the Defendant filed an appeal on November 20, 2015.

According to the result of the court's verification and appraisal conducted in the above litigation process, it was confirmed that the road boundary stone and ventilation facilities of the building in this case are installed in part of eight square meters in the above "bb" part.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant acquired the entire share of D on September 10, 2015, and removed part of the road boundary stone and ventilation facilities of the instant building after the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-4, Gap evidence 5-1 and 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the principal lawsuit of this case

A. Since the issue of specifying the purport of the claim is an ex officio investigation, where the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall ex officio order the correction, regardless of whether the defendant raises an objection, and if the defendant does not comply with it, the court must reject

(Supreme Court Decision 201Da17090 Decided September 8, 2011). (B)

ex officio, the Plaintiff is against the Defendant on the part of “2” in the ship.