1. The Defendant connects the Plaintiff with each point of the annexed drawings 7 to 10, 6, and 7 out of the area of 206 square meters in Namwon-si, Namwon-si.

1.The following facts in the absence of dispute shall be free of dispute between the parties:

On May 17, 2011, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the area of 206 square meters in Nam-si, Namwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of D Dae-si, Namwon-si (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) located adjacent to the instant land.

There are at least two warehouses owned by the Defendant on the land owned by the Defendant. Among the outer walls of the building, one warehouse intrudes on each land of this case where the part (A) part (a) of the outer wall connected with each of the points of (a) through 10,6, and 7 of the annexed drawings among the outer wall parts of the building (hereinafter referred to as “North Korea warehouse”; and the part (b) the part (a) of the outer wall connected with each of the points of (a) 11, 5, and 10 of the annexed drawings among the outer wall parts of the building (hereinafter referred to as “the part on which the crime was committed among the outer wall of the building”); and the remainder of one warehouse is one square meter (hereinafter referred to as “the above warehouse”) of the part on which the remaining warehouse connected each point of (b) of the annexed drawings in sequence among the outer wall parts of the building.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land, sought the removal of each part of the bedroomd part and the delivery of each part of the said part of the remaining warehouse, based on the ownership of the land.

Although the defendant asserts the prescription period for possession, the defendant had not passed 20 years since the construction of the warehouse in North Korea and the warehouse outside Korea.

Even if 20 years have elapsed, since the defendant violated the land of this case without permission and constructed an outer warehouse, possession does not constitute autonomous possession, which is the basis for the acquisition by prescription.

B. Around 1995, the Defendant constructed a North Korean warehouse and an south Korean warehouse.

Since the acquisition by prescription was completed with respect to each part of the crime in North Korea's inner warehouse and the outer warehouse from around 2015, the defendant has the right to possess each of the above parts of the land.

3. Determination

A. Ownership of real estate due to one possession of the relevant legal doctrine.