1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. On the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part added “the possession” to the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance (the plaintiff), stating that there was no warehouse part of the warehouse of this case at the time when the defendant purchased the land Jongno-gu Seoul D (hereinafter “D”) and the existing house on the ground from H around June 1979, and that the defendant newly constructed the warehouse of this case without permission after the purchase of the above land and the above ground house, and as a result, the defendant did not purchase the warehouse of this case at the same time.

In other words, the witness E is a neighboring resident who had been living from around 1969 to the present point of view in view of the following circumstances recognized by the video of the evidence No. 11 and the purport of the testimony and pleading of the witness E of the first instance trial: (a) the witness E stated to the effect that “The warehouse of this case was established from the time when the witness was living in the Seoul Jongno-gu I Land Building, and the outer wall of the warehouse of this case served as a fence distinguishing the boundary between the land No. C and the land; and (b) the Defendant used the warehouse of this case together with the existing house from the time when the previous house of this case was purchased on the land No. 11 to the present point of view; (c) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant newly built the warehouse of this case after the purchase of the existing house of this case, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, if the Defendant newly constructed the new warehouse of this case after the purchase of the existing house of this case, the boundary of neighboring land would become a new warehouse without permission, and there is no evidence to prove that there exists any dispute surrounding this issue.