1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 149 square meters, each point of the attached Table 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 2 shall be indicated on the attached sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 149 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant is the owner of D land adjacent to the instant land and the same ground building.

B. On the ground of the part (B) (hereinafter “instant part of land”), which connects each point of the attached Table 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 2, among the instant land, the land of this case, the part (b) which is owned by the Defendant is located on the ground of 13 square meters of the attached Table 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 13 square meters of land.

C. According to the appraiser E’s reply to appraisal of rent, the rent of the instant portion of land from September 1, 2016 to May 31, 2018 exceeds KRW 2,013,730, and the rent from May 1, 2018 to May 31, 2018 is the aggregate of KRW 2,013,730, and is similar to the date of closing argument.

5. By 31. up to 31. The monthly rent shall be KRW 100,440.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1-1-4; the result of the request for surveying and appraisal to the Vice-Governor of the Seoul Vice-Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation; the result of the request for surveying and appraisal to the appraiser E by this court; the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove and deliver the land portion of this case to the plaintiff as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiff.

Above May 1, 2018

5. Until December 31, 300, because the rent for 31 day is KRW 100,440, it shall be converted into 30 days for the convenience of calculation and recognized.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the acquisition by prescription of possession on the above part has been completed, since he owned a building with not less than 20 years on the land surface of the instant land portion for not less than 13 square meters.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1-1 and No. 2, the Defendant acquired the ownership of D land and buildings adjacent to the land of this case on April 7, 1992 and acquired the ownership of the land of this case until then, and barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the acquisition by prescription on April 7, 2012 for the land of this case was completed, barring any special circumstance.

However, on the other hand, it is.