1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 26, 1989, the Plaintiff owned each of the above land after completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to D large 183 square meters, E 100 square meters, and C miscellaneous land 88 square meters. On D ground, the Plaintiff newly constructed a 91.8 square meters general restaurant of the 1st class neighborhood living facilities of the 2nd class neighborhood living facilities of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 2nd group of the light steel structure, the 1st class of the 1st class of the 2nd group of the 2nd group of the 2nd class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s building”) on December 11, 2007 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 21, 2007

B. The Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff’s building to a third party, and the lessee operated the restaurant in the name of “F” in the above building.

C. On July 31, 2017, the Defendant completed each registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the 156 square meters, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-dong, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul, and the 156 square meters of 156 square meters, which are adjacent to the 88 square meters of Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul, and its ground reinforced concrete structure, one story of 75.44 square meters, and 53.30 square meters of 2 stories (hereinafter “instant Defendant building”). From around October 2017, the Defendant operates the Katop of the name “H” in the instant Defendant building.

On August 2017, the Plaintiff installed a boundary stone in the vicinity of the boundary of 88 square meters in Dong-gu, Dong-gu and Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul and 156 square meters in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, the Defendant, on September 13, 2017, conducted a boundary restoration survey on the boundary of the said boundary and the boundary of each of the said land did not coincide.

E. Meanwhile, customers visiting “H” due to the lack of sufficient space in the front of the instant Defendant building, who did not run a vehicle near the boundary area, was placed in a 88 square meters away from the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Yecheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff owned.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6 through 9, 15, 17 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to whether the purport of the claim is legitimate

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is 100 square meters and C miscellaneous land in Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul.