1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the land for factory in Jeonyang-gun, Jeonyang-gun, 1,723 square meters, the annexed drawings 1, 2, 3 and 1 shall each be included.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 13, 1994 in the name of Nonparty D on August 1, 1994 with respect to the land for factory in the Jeonyang-gun, Jeonyang-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). On April 18, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 21, 2014 under the name of the Plaintiff on March 21, 2014.

B. On August 13, 1994, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 1, 1994 in the name of Nonparty F, the name of Nonparty F, which was the cause of sale, with respect to the land for the land for the 1,711 square meters adjacent to the instant land, and on October 11, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 11, 2010 under the name of the Defendant.

C. On February 26, 2014, the result of the boundary restoration survey conducted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the result of the instant boundary restoration survey”), among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, it was confirmed that the Defendant occupied the part of 26.70 square meters in the part of “A” connected with each point of 1, 2, 33 and 1 (hereinafter “the occupied part of this case”) on the ground, and owned 20 square meters in the office of the single-story branch of the prefabricated board board (hereinafter “the instant building”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2 through 4, Gap evidence 4-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building owned by the Defendant and deliver the land occupied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, except in special circumstances.

B. In light of the Defendant’s assertion and judgment on the result of the boundary restoration surveying of this case, since 1994, the Defendant alleged that there was an error in the result of the boundary restoration surveying of this case on several occasions in light of the procedure of subdivision and the result of partition surveying on the land of this case and adjacent land, and therefore, it is difficult to recognize the result that the occupied part of this case is the land owned by the Plaintiff, but it is difficult to recognize the same as it is.