1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff acquired D (2/3 shares, awarded a successful bid on June 30, 2015, June 30, 2015, and registered on June 30, 2015), F (62/597 shares, trade on November 30, 2015, and registration on November 18, 2015), and G (137/597 shares, April 21, 2016, and May 16, 2016) as the former co-owner, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer.

B. The Defendant: (a) obtained a successful bid on June 22, 2015 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 22, 2015, from the Gwangju District Court E voluntary auction procedure, with the area of H large 281 square meters adjacent to the instant land and 47.60 square meters of a single-story residential roof as a part of the ground wooden village (hereinafter “instant housing”); and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 22, 2015.

C. Of the instant housing, the parts on the ship (A) that connect each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, 7, and 1, among the instant housing, are connected in sequence with the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul 1, 2, 3, 5 (including paper numbers), appraiser I's request for appraisal, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since the land in this case is recognized as owned by the plaintiff, the defendant who owns the housing in this case, affected the land on the ground, barring special circumstances, is obligated to remove the portion (A) 21 square meters in the ship, which connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, and 21 square meters in sequence among the housing in this case, and deliver the land.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion on prescriptive acquisition 1) Although the Defendant alleged that the portion (A) part (21 square meters in the ship was prescriptively acquired, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. 2) The judgment on the establishment of statutory superficies as to the instant land was based on the ownership of 2/3 shares in the instant land and 281 square meters in Haju-si and Haju-si, and the instant housing on the instant land. The Plaintiff owned D shares in the instant land on June 30, 2015, and the Defendant’s housing on the instant land on the H-si 281 square meters in Naju-si and its ground on June 22, 2015.