1. In accordance with the amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial, the judgment of the first instance court shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) the results of the survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser E by the first instance court; (d) the results of the on-site inspection conducted by the court of the first instance; and the purport of the entire pleadings as to

1) The Plaintiff is deemed to be the Plaintiff’s land of this case in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

2) The Defendant is the owner of the instant land, and the Defendant is the owner of the instant land, and the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land located in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

2) On the 2nd floor building listed in the annex 2 list between the above and the above ground (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Building”).

2) Of the Plaintiff’s land, part of the second floor of the Defendant’s building is located on the ground of 13 square meters in the part on the ground that connects each point of attached Table 24, 9, 10, 25, and 24, among the parts of the Plaintiff’s land in this case (hereinafter “the part on the land in this case”).

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant, without title, constructed a balcony on the land in the dispute of this case, which is owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the balcony, which is part of the second floor of the Defendant’s building located on the land in the dispute of this case. 2) Furthermore, on April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff newly constructed a 4th floor building (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s building”) on the Plaintiff’s land in this case (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s building”) on the ground of this case, including the land in this case, on which the Defendant’s building and fence were located. However, the Plaintiff did not obtain approval for the use of the Plaintiff’s building in this case due to the lack of the area of the parking lot attached to the Plaintiff’s building, which was permitted by the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff’s land, including the land in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s building in this case