1. The Defendants jointly indicate 1, 2, 3, 9, 7, 8, and 1 of the attached Form No. 263 square meters among the 263 square meters in Ulsan-gun D, Ulsan-gun.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is a Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, 263 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

Defendant B is the owner of the building, and Defendant B is the 76.84 square meters of the building on the land of Ulsan-gun E, Ulsan-gun, and of the string and the string roof 76.84 square meters of the string roof housing (hereinafter “instant building”).

Defendant C is the owner of the instant building, and Defendant C is living in the instant building with Defendant B’s mother. 2) Part of the instant building is located on the ground of 28 square meters in the part (B) of the instant land, which connects each point of which is indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 7, 8, and 1, and is used as the end of the instant building, the part (a) part of the instant building, which connects each point of which is indicated in the same drawing Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 3.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, results of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Ulsan branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation, purport of whole pleadings]

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, Defendant B owned the instant building, and Defendant C possessed the portion indicated in the annexed drawing(a) and (b) of the instant land without any title while living in the instant building. As such, Defendant C is jointly obligated to remove the above part(b) and remove the above part(b) and deliver the said part(a) to the Plaintiff who is the owner of the instant land.

2. The defendants' assertion and judgment as to the defendants

A. The Defendants asserted that, since Defendant B’s father constructed a debt under the instant building before 25 years prior to the construction of the debt, he used the part of (a) and (b) of the instant land as the following, and during that period, he cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that he did not have received any objection from the owner of the instant land. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion that this is an assertion for the prescription of possession.

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possession of the Defendants is presumed to have been performed in a peaceful manner according to their own intent.

(b).