1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on June 9, 200 with respect to D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type and 540 square meters (hereinafter “instant E-type”) prior to E-type E-type (hereinafter “the instant land”); and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on September 15, 200 by constructing two-story housing on the instant land (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

B. After that, on October 11, 2006, F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the above land and housing, the Defendant acquired ownership of each of the above land and housing by paying the sale price on or around August 17, 2015, upon receiving the decision of permission for sale on June 18, 2015 from the auction procedure where each of the above land and housing was in progress.

C. Meanwhile, around February 2001, the Plaintiff installed a groundwater pipe at its own expense (hereinafter “instant groundwater pipe”). The instant groundwater pipe is a facility that uses power equipment, and the floor or the wall is built with concrete and brick, and is covered by the steel system.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 15 evidence 1 to 3, 9, Eul evidence 3, 9-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole of images and pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was the owner of the instant land, and installed a groundwater pipe on the said land for the purpose of growing crops, and due to the error in the boundary surveying, Kimpo-si, which is owned by the neighboring country (Ministry of National Defense), was established in Kimpo-si.

Therefore, since the above land is not in conformity with the above E land, the ownership of the land acquired through auction is not transferred to the defendant, but is still the ownership of the plaintiff.

Even if the instant groundwater was established on the instant land owned by the Defendant, it cannot be consistent with the land since the Plaintiff developed the instant land with separate costs.

Nevertheless, since the defendant uses groundwater without any authority without permission, it is used.