1. The Defendant shall, in order to the Plaintiff, each point of the attached Form 1 through 7, and 1 among the area of 590 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 2,360 square meters prior to Chungcheongnam-gun budget-gun D on October 29, 2014, and on March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 2,360 square meters from the above land (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) The Defendant owns two vinyls installed in the vicinity of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant vinyl”). A part of the instant vinyls are installed on the part (A) of the instant vinyl connected each point of the attached Form 1 through 7, and 1, which is located in the order of priority among the instant vinyls, and on the part (B) of the instant vinyls connected each point of (a) and (b) through 8, and the attached Form 8 through 10, and 8, which are located in the order of priority among the items indicated in the attached Form 1 through 7, and on the part (b) of the instant vinyls (hereinafter “the instant vinyl”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, result of survey and appraisal by appraiser E, purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, the owner of the land of this case, has the duty to remove two vinyl houses installed in the dispute part of this case and deliver the dispute part of this case to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant, around 1996, established two of the instant vinyls on the ground near the instant land, which was aware of the fact that it was on the ground of the land F in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the neighboring area of the instant land, and carried out the same openly and openly with the intent to own for at least 20 years through the instant vinyls. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense of the statute of limitations for acquiring possession of the instant vinyls was completed around 2016.

It is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant installed two vinyls of this case from the time on 1996 to possess the part of the dispute of this case only with the statement of No. 1, B alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit without examining the remainder of the issue.

In light of the statement of Gap evidence No. 5, the defendant.