1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserts as follows.

Although it is owned by the State, the Nam-gu C road 2546 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by the State at port, the Plaintiff has occupied and used the instant land for a period of several hundred and forty years after raising the value of the land as it was buried in the underground of the instant land.

However, around November 2015, the Defendant, without any authority between the Plaintiff’s life with cerebrovascular, was deprived of the Plaintiff’s possession by constructing the plastic houses and buildings stated in the purport of the claim on the land of this case without permission.

Accordingly, the plaintiff sought the recovery of deprived possession and the exclusion of disturbance based on the recovered possession, and accordingly, the defendant is obligated to remove the above plastic houses and buildings and deliver the land of this case.

2. Determination

A. "Possession" refers to an objective relationship that shows that an object belongs to a factual control of the person in terms of social norms, and in order to have a de facto control, it does not necessarily mean that the object is physically and practically controlled, but should be determined in accordance with the concept of society in consideration of the time and spatial relationship with the object, the principal right relationship with the object, the possibility of exclusion from others' control, etc. In the lawsuit for recovery of possession, it should be examined only as to whether the object has occupied at the time of the assertion that he/she was deprived of possession.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34543, Jul. 25, 2003)

In the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land on November 2015 only with health care units, evidence Nos. 5, 8, 10, and 11, evidence Nos. 4 and 9, evidence Nos. 4 and 9, and witness evidence Nos. 4 and 9. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.