1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, among the land of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 18,971 square meters of forest land.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, the plaintiff owned a 18,971 square meters of land in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "the land in this case"). The defendant owned a 64 square meters of land without permission on the ground that connects each point of 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 107, and 105, among the land in this case, the land in this case, and the fact that the plaintiff occupies the 64 square meters of land without permission on the ground that connects each point of 93, 92, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 93, the fact that the plaintiff occupies the above 158 square meters of land on the ship.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff is not entitled to standing to sue in the case of Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap528312, which was filed by D in relation to the land of this case, and that the plaintiff has lost in the case of this case. However, according to the statement in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the claim of D as a foundation was dismissed in the appellate court of the above case, and since the appeal of D as foundation foundation was dismissed and the above appellate judgment became final and conclusive, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, has the duty to remove the part of the instant land 64 square meters from among the instant land, which was located on the ground with the indication of the attached drawing, and deliver the same Gaz, the shower part of the land to the Plaintiff, and the shower part of the land.

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that the compensation for the above unauthorized building should be granted to the defendant, but it is difficult for the defendant to find grounds for seeking compensation for the above unauthorized building to the plaintiff, and the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.