1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 29, 1972, C completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 29, 1972, and on December 12, 1998, by the Plaintiff on December 12, 1998.

B. On November 10, 1999, B large-724 square meters, which is a mother land, was divided into B large-436 square meters (hereinafter “B”) and I large-28 square meters, respectively.

C. Of the land B, the area of 13 square meters in part (b) in the ship (hereinafter “instant dispute land”) connected each point in sequence with the indication of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 15, 14, 13, 12, and 1 among the land in the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 15, 14, 12, and 1 is being provided

【In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 and 7, the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Korea Land Information Corporation by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in obstructing the exercise of the Plaintiff’s ownership when the Defendant, despite the existence of D roads, packages a container on the land in the dispute of this case, which is owned by the Plaintiff, or occupies the land in the dispute of this case without a legitimate title by installing a water supply and drainage system.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the asphalts installed on the land of the dispute of this case to the plaintiff and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the land in question was naturally offered to the general public for traffic, and the Defendant merely supported the ice Packaging on the land in question in order to prevent inconvenience and safety accidents at the request of nearby residents. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant occupied and managed the land in question as the road.

Even if it is not so, the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land in dispute of this case because the land in this case was provided as the passage of neighboring residents and the Defendant knew that the water supply and drainage center was installed in the road site of this case and did not raise any objection.

3. Determination A.