1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the land size of 268 square meters in Gyeongsan-si, Gyeongsan-si, each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 shall be in order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of D large 268 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner of the E-owned building without permission on the land immediately adjacent to the said land (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The instant building was constructed over the ground level of 8 square meters in part (A) connected in order to each point of the indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached drawing among the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, the defendant, who seeks the removal of disturbance as the owner of the land in the dispute in this case, is obligated to remove the building on the ground of the dispute in this case and deliver the above part of the land to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) argues that his father purchased the part of the land in the dispute in this case from G as of February 22, 1975, which was the owner of the land in this case, and thus, he has the right to possess the part of the land in the dispute in this case. However, since the statement of evidence No. 1 is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted. 2) Next, the defendant asserts that since February 22, 1975, the defendant has a legitimate right to possess the part of the land in this case since he occupied the land in this case in peace and openly and openly from February 2, 1975, and the acquisition by prescription for possession of the part of the land in this case has been completed.

Even if the acquisition by prescription of possession of an immovable has been completed, if the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate has been completed to a third party with respect to such real estate without making a registration, the possessor shall not oppose the third party by prescription.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45402 delivered on July 10, 1998, etc.). The defendant is the defendant on July 10, 1975.