1. The defendant shall pay 79,400 won to the plaintiff.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3...

1. Determination on both arguments

A. (1) From February 25, 1997, the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s land as part of the removal of the instant building and the request for the delivery of the instant land portion (A) from February 25, 1997 to the present day. Since the time when the part of the instant building was registered for the preservation of ownership among May 193, 1993, the Plaintiff owned part of the Plaintiff’s land. The fact that the entire ownership of the instant building, including the instant building, was transferred to the Defendant on September 10, 1999 does not conflict between the parties.

(2) The part of the Plaintiff’s above claim is controversial whether the Defendant (or the former possessor)’s possession of the land portion of the instant claim can be deemed to be so-called “the possession of the owner,” and the part of the witness E’s testimony alone is still insufficient to conclude the Defendant’s possession of the land portion of the instant case as the possession of the owner, and as long as there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, insofar as the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s possession of the land portion of the instant claim was incorporated up to the period of the former possessor’s possession and had already been acquired by prescription from the possession of the land portion of the instant claim as of May 2013 is correct, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim is eventually unacceptable or all.

B. As to the removal of the Plaintiff’s structure of this case and the request for the delivery of the portion of the land of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant still occupied the instant structure and the part of the land of this case, and that the Defendant sought against the Defendant the removal of the instant structure based on the ownership of the land of this case and the transfer of the part of the land of this case. However, it is concluded that the Defendant still occupied the part of the land of this case and the structure of this case, only on the basis of the partial entries or images of Gap 4, 9, and Eul 1.