1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the area of 337.8 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, each point of "1, 5, 6, 4, and 1" is indicated in the attached drawings.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 337.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Around 1973, the Defendant acquired ownership of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D-328.6 square meters (hereinafter “the adjoining land”) and the building on its ground adjacent to the instant land, and subsequently removed the building located on the adjoining land and newly built a new building around 2003.

C. On the ground of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, the fence (hereinafter “the fence”) is referred to as “the fence” in the case where: (a) part of 7.2 square meters or less is connected in sequence to each point of the items indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 5, 6, 4, and 1 on the ground of the instant land; and (b) the part

D. The Plaintiff, after acquiring the instant land in 2015, removed the buildings on the instant land and newly constructed a new building. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff’s survey and appraisal conducted by the Seoul Metropolitan Government Headquarters, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Headquarters for National Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Determination on the removal of a fence and the claim for the delivery of land

A. According to the facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the fence of this case was installed on the land owned by the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to remove the fence installed on the ground of the land in this case where the plaintiff exercising the right to claim exclusion of disturbance based on ownership, barring any special circumstance, and deliver the land to the plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the claim of prescriptive acquisition 1, the Defendant asserts that, since 1973, the acquisition by prescription was completed by occupying the land in the dispute of this case, and the Plaintiff also acquired the land in this case with knowledge of the completion of prescription, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer following the completion of prescription

Even if the acquisition by prescription of possession of real estate has been completed, it shall be applied to the real estate without being registered.