1. The Defendant shall indicate the Plaintiff each of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, and 1, among the land size of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 317 square meters.

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu 317.3 square meters, and the Defendant is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 320.7 square meters adjacent to the said land owned by the Plaintiff and the owner of the housing on its ground.

In the case of the foregoing housing owned by the Defendant, the wall built on the ground of 2m2,00 square meters connected to each point in order, and the wall on the ground of 1,2,3,4, and 1, the wall on the ground of 0.2m2, which is located on the part inside the ship connected each point in order of 0.2m2, which is installed on the part inside the ship connected each point, shall be installed by

【Ground of recognition】In fact without any gap, Gap 1, 2, 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above fact of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove each part of the gate 1, 2, 3, and 2, installed on the ground of the part on the part on the part on which the points are connected in order of each point, and the part on the part on the part on the ground of 2,00 square meters in Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu 317.3 square meters, barring any special circumstance, to deliver the land of 2,00 square meters on the part on the ship connected in order of each point to the Plaintiff, except in the following circumstances: (1), (2), (3), (4), and (1).

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with because there was an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the deceased E, who is the owner of the building on the land, and the deceased E, who is the owner of the building on the land, to determine the present state as the boundary. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is difficult to acknowledge that there was an agreement as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no agreement

In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant played a role of land boundary for at least 30 years with fences and girls installed by the network F, and that the land area to be transferred by the Plaintiff is merely 2.2 square meters and thus, there is no significant economic benefit to acquire it.