1. The Defendant also 22 or 483m2 as indicated in the reference table for the survey on the status of cadastral land in the attached Form among the 6,483m2 in Seopopoposi.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owns a D orchard 6,483 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); the Defendant owns a E-road 252 square meters and a F road 327 square meters adjacent to the southwest of the said orchard; and the Nonparty G owns a H orchard 4,086 square meters and a I cemetery 63 square meters, each of which pass the said road.

B. Around 1976, the Defendant, in addition to the Seogpo-si E road and F road, has installed cement packaging in the ship which connects each point of 22 to 32, 40, 41 through 56, and 22 of the annexed cadastral status surveying, which is abutting on the above site among the land of this case, with the parts of 122 square meters in sequence (hereinafter “inboard part”) and 32 to 39, and 32 square meters in sequence (hereinafter “inboard part”) connected each point of 32 to 32, 32, and 32 square meters in sequence, and has occupied the parts and 8 square meters in the ship by installing a road and providing it for the passage of the general public.

In this process, there was no legitimate procedures for compensation such as accepting the parts and parts of the ship.

[Based on Recognition] A without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers), the result of a request for appraisal of cadastral surveying to the head of Seogpopo District Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to deliver the parts in the ship and the whole parts in the ship to the plaintiff who is the owner of the parts in the ship, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant asserts that, at the time of acquiring the instant land, the Plaintiff did not incur any loss to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff had already been provided for the passage of the general public, and that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed in such a case.

The case is based on ownership on the ground that the defendant occupies the part on the ship and the part on the ship without permission.