1. The Defendant connects the Plaintiff with each point of 1,2,3,4, and 1 of the annexed drawings, among the area of 140 square meters in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

The Defendant, while occupying 140 square meters prior to C in Kimpo-si, owned by the Plaintiff, installed a container on the order and on the ground of 3.1 square meters in part on the above land, and installed a wood, etc. on the ground of 52.7 square meters in part on the part of (b) in a ship, as there is no dispute between the parties, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the above portion (a) to the Plaintiff and remove the above portion (b) 3.1 square meters in a ship, and to collect the things on the ground of 52.7

In regard to this, the defendant seems to have claimed that the prescription period for acquisition of possession was completed by jointly and openly occupying 140 square meters of 140 square meters prior to Kimpo-si as the intention of ownership between 20 years, but in light of the contents of the defendant's preparatory document, it is not deemed that the defendant asserted that the prescription period has been expired from the preparatory document submitted on April 24, 2019, which was the date of closing argument.

In light of the defendant's assertion, it is reasonable to view that the defendant or the former owner of the above land occupied the above land without permission upon knowing the fact that it does not meet the legal requirements such as legal acts which may cause the acquisition of ownership of the above land without permission or any other legal requirements. Thus, the defendant's possession is an unauthorized possession by nature of title.

Therefore, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the judgment as per Disposition.