1. The defendant has each point of 10, 11, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, and 10 of the annexed drawings among the area of 588.4 square meters in Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale due to voluntary auction with respect to the Seo-gu Busan metropolitan area of 588.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On December 31, 1974, the Defendant is the owner who completed the registration of ownership preservation with respect to the housing and the second floor adjacent to the instant land, Seo-gu Busan metropolitan area of D (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Of the instant building owned by the Defendant, the part on (B) part of 9.6 square meters on the ground, which was connected in turn to each point of 10, 11, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, and 10 square meters of the attached drawing among the instant building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the part on the instant bedroom”) was connected to the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and the building and attached facilities of the second floor are connected to the instant land owned by the

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, entry (including additional number) in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of this court's commission of surveying and appraisal to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, unless the defendant asserts and fails to prove the lawful source of right to possess the part of the intrusion of this case, the defendant is obligated to remove the building and attached facilities on the second floor above ground of the intrusion of this case and deliver the part of the intrusion of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant asserts that since 1974, since he occupied and used the building of this case, he acquired the prescription by prescription since he occupied and used the part of the crime of this case in peace and openly.

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s completion of the registration of ownership preservation on the instant building on December 31, 1974 by December 31, 1974. However, even if the acquisition by prescription for possession of the instant real estate has been completed, the possessor may not oppose the third party, if the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with respect to the said real estate to a third party without registration.

Therefore, the plaintiff is the defendant with respect to the building of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da56495, Apr. 10, 1998).