1. The Defendant, in sequence, shall each point of the Plaintiff, indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 7, and 1, among the “405 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jeonju-gun.”

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on September 11, 2013, with respect to “the instant one parcel of land” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant one parcel of land”) in the Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) on December 24, 2012, and “D large 116 square meters” (hereinafter referred to as “instant two land”).

B. Of the instant land 1, the part “(a)” part of the part on the ship (a) connected in sequence with each point of 1,2,3,7, and 1, among the land in the instant case and the part “(b)” part of the land in the attached Form 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 3, among the land in the instant case, which are collectively connected with each point of 46 square meters of the attached Form 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 3, there is

(2) The court below held that each of the above fences was "the wall of this case" and the above land of paragraphs (a) and (b) was "the wall of this case" 2.

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the wall of this case to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the site of this case, and deliver the site of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion argues that E purchased the land of this case 2 adjacent to the above land at the time of purchase of the land, and constructed a fence on the land of this case 2, and that E sold the land of this case 2 twice to the plaintiff, so E cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

However, as alleged by the Defendant, even if the Defendant purchased the instant 2 land from E, the former owner of the instant land, such circumstance alone cannot be asserted against the removal of the instant wall and the request for delivery of the instant wall site, and the said assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.