1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

A. Of the buildings listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1, the annexed Form No. 259 square meters among the buildings in Daegu-gu Seoul-gu.

Facts of recognition

On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer in the names of the Plaintiffs (each 1/2 shares) on the grounds of sale with respect to the land of 259m2 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) in Seo-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “Seoul-gu”).

On April 6, 2010, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant with respect to the buildings listed in the annexed list of land adjacent to the plaintiffs' land (hereinafter "the defendant's building").

The walls installed along with the Defendant’s building and the Defendant’s building, and managed by the Defendant (hereinafter “the walls of this case”) are built by settling the part of 2.9 square meters in the “bb” portion on the part of the Plaintiff’s land connected in order to each point of 12, 4, 14, 13, and 12 indicated in the attached drawing among the Plaintiffs’ land, and the remainder of the land where the Defendant’s building or the wall of this case was not installed is also occupied and used by the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including the provisional number), the result of each appraisal commission to appraiser E by this court, and the above fact-finding as to the ground for claim of the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant is obligated to remove the defendant's building and fence constructed on the plaintiffs' land, and deliver the part of the dispute's land to the plaintiffs.

The defendant's argument is that since the non-party F opened possession of the part of the land in dispute from January 28, 191 to April 1, 201, the defendant occupied the part of the land in dispute in a peaceful and public performance with the intention of ownership until now, since the non-party F opened possession of the land in dispute, the defendant's possession of the land in dispute was completed on January 28, 201, and thus, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiffs' claim.

However, even if the period of prescription for the acquisition by possession has expired, the possessor is merely holding the obligatory claim against the owner at the time of the acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da24241, Dec. 5, 1995; 76Da242, Mar. 22, 197).