1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for an additional determination under paragraph (2) as to the assertion emphasized by the plaintiff by filing an appeal, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate). 2. Determination as to the plaintiff'

A. Since the instant building owned by Defendant B exists on the Plaintiff’s land, Defendant B should remove the instant building and deliver the instant building site to the Plaintiff.

In addition, the Plaintiff was obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the prescriptive acquisition, as the land next to the instant building was planted or flaged, and occupied for more than 20 years, Defendant C, the owner of the said land, is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the prescriptive acquisition.

B. In addition to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 through 9, the party’s personal examination results and the whole arguments against Defendant B of the Party, unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant building exists on the ground owned by Defendant C and on the land owned by the Republic of Korea (see next forests), and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B on the land owned by the Plaintiff on the premise that the instant building exists, contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion, is without merit.

In addition, other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff cultivated bamboo, etc. and occupied the site of the instant building for 20 years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is without merit.

DF CB E [Afforestation] The current state of land adjacent to the instant building and its owner;

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.