1.On a request for change in exchange at the time of the trial,

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are not less than 15769 square meters of Gunsan-si D Forest.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of D Forest land 15,769 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant is the owner of CP 4,559 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. Of the instant land, 22 through 29, 83, 82, 30, 31, 32, 32, 32, 33, 33, and 81, the area of 273 square meters (hereinafter “the instant road”) on the cream section of the Road Act, which connects each point of the instant land, is a slope of the road (E) adjacent to the boundary line with the land owned by the Defendant among the instant land.

C. The Defendant occupies ten square meters of land owned by the Defendant, among the instant land, which is located within the scope of 30,82, 83, 29, and 30 square meters in sequence, connected to each point of the attached drawings (hereinafter “the land occupied by the Defendant”).

【Ground for recognition】 The absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13; Eul evidence and video; Eul evidence 2; and Eul court’s survey, appraisal, and complementary appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the part on the surface of the Road Act between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the ownership of the plaintiff among the land in this case is confirmed to be owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the defendant's possession to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant's father G purchased the land owned by the defendant on March 5, 1975, but died without registering it, and that the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on March 5, 1975, and that the land boundary problem has been occupied in peace and public performance for more than 20 years since it did not have any problems about land boundary, and that the part of the defendant's possession was acquired by prescription.

In other words, the plaintiff is aware of the following circumstances, taking into account the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2.