1. The Defendant shall have the cement brickd slick roof on the ground of the amount of 340.5 square meters and D 258.9 square meters and the cement brick slicking roof to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 27, 2015 with respect to C Daepo-si 340.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 27, 2015 with respect to the said land and the instant land, and the Defendant is the owner who completed each registration of ownership transfer on December 31, 2014 with respect to cement brick structure 70.08 square meters, cement block structure, cement block structure, cement roof structure, and 29.83 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Of the instant land, the instant building was constructed by overcoming the boundary of the instant land in proportion to the part (B) connected in sequence to each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the instant land.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the above part of (b) of the building in this case from 39.3 square meters and deliver the above part of (b) to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

3. The defendant's assertion that around 1969, E, who was the owner of the land of this case, newly constructed cement brick sloping roof house on the ground, and he stored a boundary fence. Since around 1970, F, who was the owner of the land of this case, newly constructed the building of this case and built a fence connected to the boundary fence of the land of this case, he managed the building of this case by installing a boundary fence of the land of this case. Since around 1970, F, upon E's consent or implied consent, acquired legal superficies by destroying part of the land of this case, and thereafter, the defendant who acquired the ownership of the building of this case succeeded to legal superficies.

In the case of land belonging to the same person and on the ground, the legal superficies, for the sake of the owner of the above ground, if the land belonging to the same person and the above ground becomes different later.