The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff of the claim for land delivery is obligated to deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, since the defendant occupies the land of this case (the plaintiff's ownership) and the neighboring land D, E, and F (hereinafter "the neighboring land of this case") and operates the parking lot.

On October 1, 2012, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant land and its neighboring land from the Plaintiff’s mother G (hereinafter “the deceased”) to operate the parking lot; and (b) claimed that only neighboring land was leased from June 30, 2014 to operate the parking lot, except the instant land, after the deceased’s death.

Judgment

The instant land has a parking lot sign indicating that it still is being used as a parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) along with the neighboring land, and some of the automobiles are parked.

(A) Nos. 5-1, 7). However, the defendant does not stay at the parking lot of this case except for weekends, and there is no facility that restricts access to the parking lot of this case, and it is not managed during the parking lot of this case, and the neighboring workers and residents seem to park cars at their own discretion.

(H) On June 30, 2014, when the Plaintiff raised an issue regarding the illegal use of the instant land to the Defendant, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement only for the neighboring land except for the instant land (Evidence A 3), and the Plaintiff also demanded that the Plaintiff install a boundary fence directly by expressing his intention not to use the instant land.

(Witness H) In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff’s claim for the delivery of land premised on the Defendant’s possession of the instant land cannot be accepted, as it is difficult to recognize that the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff was practically controlled by the Defendant even after June 30, 2014.

2. Undue profits;