1. The Defendant, in sequence, connects the Plaintiff with each point of (i) the attached drawings among the 228m2 in the city of Won-si, Doz.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 15, 1990, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff with respect to C & 228 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

D E CF

B. Around March 27, 2002, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to the land D, 132 square meters and its ground-based single-story housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) located adjacent to the instant land.

C. The fence surrounding the surrounding area of the instant house is installed on the land of the original city of the original city of the Republic of Korea and on the land of the instant case, which is located on the land of the original city of the Republic of Korea, and on the ground of the instant land. Of the aforementioned fence (0.2m wide), the part of the fenced in the attached Form (i.e., Sheshed), Shed, and kind of 6.1m successively connected each

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 8 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts established on the basis of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, owns a wall installed on the boundary line of the site, and thus, has the possession of 1.22 square meters in the line (the length 6.1m x 0.2m m x 0.2m m m x 0.2m m m m m m m ) connected each of the points in order. Thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, has the obligation to remove the fence installed on the ground of 1.22m m m

B. The Defendant’s assertion and determination 1, at the time of the Defendant’s purchase of the instant house and the instant land located in the original city, the Defendant knew that the fence surrounding the instant land was installed on the said D land, and that he did not know that the instant land owned by the Plaintiff was infringed upon, but such circumstance can be deemed as a justifiable ground for the Defendant’s possession of the instant land in which the fence was installed.