1. The defendant has each point of reference indicated in the attached Form 11, 15, 16, 5, and 11 among the land area of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 257.2 square meters to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s land in the instant dispute is the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 774 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

) and its ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-owned buildings”);

The Defendant is the owner of the land owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the owner of the land owned by the Plaintiff and the land owned by the Defendant 257.2 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

) and its ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant-owned buildings”);

(2) The Plaintiff is the owner of the land owned by the Defendant and occupied and used part of 12 square meters in the text of the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land in dispute”) as part of the land owned by the Plaintiff.

B. On February 24, 2005, the former parcel number Seoul E, F, D, G, H, and I’s six parcels of land (hereinafter “instant six parcels”) around February 24, 2005, the land owned by the Plaintiff is specified solely by the former parcel number.

(2) Of the instant six parcels, the instant six parcels were combined, and the specific location of the instant six parcels is the same as indicated in the certified copy of the cadastral map closed in the separate sheet. (2) Of the instant six parcels, the old parcel number H large 131.9 square meters was one-story house (hereinafter “existing house of this case”). However, the J purchased from K on July 26, 1989 the entire existing house of this case and the relevant old parcel number H land of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 26, 1989, each of them purchased from K the ownership of 16.7 shares of the 35 percent of the old parcel number H’s land of this case and the previous parcel number’s land of this case as the site of the existing house of this case.

3) B before the purchase of the existing house of this case and its site, there were fences between the existing house of this case and the Defendant’s building, and each of the entrance doors took place. The land in this case was located within the gate and fence of the existing house of this case and used as the site of the existing house of this case (as follows, according to the evidence below, the existing house gate of this case was located adjacent to the gate of the building owned by the Defendant.