1. The Defendant: (a) is not less than 93m2, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, and the Plaintiff:

(a) in sequence 6, 7, 8, 9, and 6 of the Appendix No. 6,7, 8, 9, and 6.

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan area of 93 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) at the port of one’s port.

On July 19, 2001, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D adjacent to the instant site. On November 27, 2001, the Defendant newly constructed a detached house on the ground and completed the registration of ownership preservation with respect to it. At that time, around that time, the Defendant constructed a prefabricated warehouse building on the ground of 5 square meters of the portion inside the instant site owned by the Plaintiff, which connects each point of (A) part of the attached drawing No. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 6, among the instant site owned by the Plaintiff, and occupied the said part as the site for the said building.

In addition, after acquiring the ownership of the above D, the Defendant used the part of the above D as a garden after laying down an original pipe on the natural drainage of the part (B) part (B) of 9m2, which connects each point of 3,4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 3 of the attached drawing among the land in this case owned by the Plaintiff, with the natural drainage of the area (B) of 9m2.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute; entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 5; the result of a request for measurement and appraisal to the branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation in the Republic of Korea; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, has the duty to remove the above part of (A) of the instant site from the building site, and deliver the said site to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances, and deliver the part (b) 9m2 to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the period of prescription for acquisition of possession has expired, on the part of the above ship with the intention to own it for 20 years, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant occupied the above part of paragraphs (a) and (b) for 20 years, the above argument by the Defendant is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.