1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From November 1, 2007, the Plaintiff owned the land specified in paragraph (1) of the attached Table (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

From August 13, 2002, the Defendants owned 1/2 shares of each of the land listed in the annexed Table No. 2 (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land from August 13, 2002.

B. On October 11, 2013, the Defendants newly constructed a building stipulated in Paragraph 3 of the attached Table (hereinafter “Defendants’ building”) on the Defendants’ land, and filed registration of preservation of ownership in one-half shares, respectively.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants, before and after the construction of the Defendants’ building, delegated the following surveys to the Korea Land Information Corporation (Gu Cadastral Information Corporation) and issued the outcome thereof.

On June 5, 2013, the result of the survey No. 1 as of June 14, 2013, the applicant for the kind of the filing date of the survey No. 1 as of June 14, 2013, and the Plaintiff [based on recognition] on September 17, 2018, the actual status of the same cadastral coordinate No. 2, 1, 2, 13 through 17, 1, and 2 (including the serial number) of the Plaintiff on June 27, 2013, when the Defendant was newly constructed and newly built on June 5, 2015 at least the Defendant on June 14, 2015, and on June 14, 2013, Plaintiff 2018 on the re-issuance of Plaintiff No. 2 as of January 30, 2018.

2. Since the Defendants’ building was invaded without any title on the part of 10 square meters in the ship (A) connected with each point of the items in sequence among the Plaintiff’s alleged land, among the Plaintiff’s land, the part of the Defendants’ building in the part of the land in the instant dispute is to be removed and the part of the instant dispute is to be handed over to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants should remove the part of the Defendants’ building in the part of the land in the instant dispute to the Plaintiff and deliver the part of the instant dispute to the Plaintiff.

3. In light of the following circumstances revealed through the records of this case, it is deemed insufficient to recognize that the Defendants’ building violated the part of the land in this case among the Plaintiff’s land.

Therefore, the plaintiff is premised on the above intrusion.