1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is set forth in Article 1-A of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

The phrase “C forest land 21,956 square meters” in paragraph shall be deemed as “C forest land 22,756 square meters,” and Article 1-b.

subsection (1) of this section.

4. 27."No. 1-e. "No. 27."

In addition to the use of “H” as “E,” it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The owner of a building that judged the cause of the claim does not actually occupy the building or its site but occupies the site for the ownership of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935, Nov. 13, 2003). According to the facts admitted by the court of first instance as cited by the trial, the defendant occupies the land in the dispute of this case owned by the plaintiff as the owner of the building in the dispute of this case as the owner of the building in this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to remove the building in this case and deliver the land in this case to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion on the acquisition by prescription is as follows: (a) since the construction of the building in the dispute in this case was around 1970 and then the alteration of the administrative district and name of Sung-gun was made on January 1, 1989; and (b) on January 1, 1995, the Young-gun was revised into the race-si. On January 1, 1995, the Young-gun was occupied by the Superintendent of the Office of Education, the Office of Education, and the F occupy the land in this case, which is the site for the building in the dispute in this case, peace and openly and openly with the intent to own the land in this case; (b) it is apparent that the Defendant prior to the possession of the land in the dispute in this case has occupied the land in this case for a peaceful and openly and openly for twenty (20) years, the starting point of acquisition by prescription is as follows.

2) The land prior to the subdivision is the land prior to the subdivision, E, 1,891 square meters (hereinafter “land prior to the subdivision”).

In addition, the ownership of the instant building was acquired on April 27, 1992 from the point of view.