1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following reasons. Thus, this is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] From 5th to 7th of the judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's fifth to 7th of the same pages are as follows.

The following point is whether the presumption of peaceful possession has been broken.

A peaceful possession refers to a possession that does not use an act of force that is not legally acceptable for an occupant to acquire or hold such possession, and a performance-based possession refers to a possession that is not an possession of secret. Thus, even if a person asserts that such possession was illegal, or there was a legal dispute between the parties over the ownership of an object, it cannot be said that the peace and performance of such possession is lost solely on the fact that the possessor was dissatisfied with the illegal possession, or that there was a legal dispute between the parties over the ownership of the object.

(2) On November 13, 1998, the court below held that the plaintiff's testimony was against F, the former owner of the neighboring building of this case, even if the witness F, that the plaintiff notified F, the former owner of the neighboring building of F of this case that he infringed on the land of this case, or that it was against F, and there is no reason to deem that F, demanded the return of the part (f) out of the adjoining building of this case or the return of unjust enrichment (the plaintiff alleged that G, the plaintiff's wife, demanded its return to F, but the part (f) of this case) of this case was constructed on September 1, 1994 as it was against the land of this case from the time when the first construction of the neighboring building was completed on January 1, 1985, which was the previous owner of the adjacent building of this case, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff demanded the return of this case to the defendant after the invasion of this case.

According to the testimony of F of the witness F of the party trial, this case.