1. From July 14, 2015 to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, among the land size of 149.1 square meters in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, Jongno-gu.

1. The facts falling under any of the following subparagraphs may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the arguments as a result of a survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser E, the following facts may be found: (a) each of the statements and images set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 10, 13 through 15 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the arguments.

Plaintiff

B On November 30, 200, the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 149.1 square meter (hereinafter "the plaintiff's land") on November 30, 200, and the plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 portion of the above land on December 20, 2005.

The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 8, 1994 with respect to wooden taxmen and apap 2 mar on the ground of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan City G large 46.3mm2 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant's land), which is neighboring land, about the 9th mar and 2nd 1st mar (hereinafter referred to as the defendant's building).

B. However, the Defendant’s building, from the time of construction to July 13, 209, was built in a unit of five square meters in part (hereinafter “the part of the instant land”) connected with each point of the Plaintiff’s land, in sequence, among the items indicated in the Appendix No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 3, 4, 10, and 10. The rent from July 14, 2005 to July 13, 2007 from July 14, 2007, from July 14, 2007 to July 13, 2009, from July 14, 2007 to July 14, 200, from July 14, 2009 to July 13, 2013, from July 14, 2009 to July 13, 2013.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff occupied the part of the instant land by impairing the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land. At around 2000, the Plaintiffs informed the Defendant at the time of rebuilding the building on the Plaintiff’s land, and thus, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s building was built on the part of the instant land.

As such, it is reasonable to rent for the part of the instant land from July 14, 2005.