1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 7, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to F. 116 square meters in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, and the said F’s land was combined with G. 142 square meters in April 8, 2004, and its area became 258 square meters in size.

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s land”) 258m2 in Seosan-si. B.

On June 10, 1987, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on the same day with respect to the C, 36 square meters, D, 36 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s land”) and the two-story buildings on the Defendant’s land (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land.

C. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the instant building intrudes on the part (b) part (b) of 17 square meters inboard connected each point of the Plaintiff’s land, which is indicated in the Appendix No. 14, 15, 16, 17, 11, 12, and 14, among the Plaintiff’s land.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 16 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4; Eul evidence Nos. 6; Gap evidence Nos. 13, 15; Eul evidence Nos. 7; each on-site inspection conducted by the court of first instance and the court of first instance; the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the court of first instance for appraiser H; the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the principal claim, the defendant who occupies and uses the part of the dispute in this case is obligated to remove the building on the ground of the dispute in this case to the owner, unless there are special circumstances, and deliver the land of the dispute in this case to the owner, and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the part in the dispute in this case to the owner.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff appears to have sought payment of KRW 10,00,000 as mental compensation on the premise that the possession and use of the part of the instant dispute as above by the Defendant was an illegal possession, on the premise that the tort was constituted. However, the Plaintiff’s written application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim as stated on January 22, 2014, which was stated on the fifth date of pleading in the first instance court, as mental compensation.