1. The defendant shall order the plaintiff B to each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 1, among the 574 square meters of the 574 square meters in Hongsung-gun D.

1. Determination as to the plaintiff B's claim

A. The fact of recognition is that the Defendant is the owner of a house owned by the Defendant on the ground of 183 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongnam-gun (hereinafter “Defendant-owned house”). Of the 574 square meters wide (hereinafter “instant land”), the Defendant laid a sewerage pipe connected to the Defendant’s house on the ground of 10 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), which is connected in sequence to each point of 1,2,3,4,6, and 1 of the attached drawings, among the land owned by the Plaintiff, Hongnam-gun, Hongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, result of survey appraisal, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to deliver the land in this case to the plaintiff B seeking the removal of disturbance as the owner of the land in this case. 2) The plaintiff B is also obligated to deliver the land in this case to the plaintiff B, who connected each point of the attached Form No. 4, 5, 6, and 4 among the land in this case. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant occupied the above part of this case by only the result of the survey appraisal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's claim is rejected.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant occupied 25 square meters of the part inside the ship connected in order to each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff A,” and sought the delivery of the said land against the Defendant.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff A alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff A is the owner of the land in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff A's claim is not accepted on a different premise.

3. Conclusion, Plaintiff B’s claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. Plaintiff A’s claim is dismissed as it is without merit.