1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) donated the Plaintiff’s land in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant land”) to the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 1, 2012; and (b) owned a building of 13 floors on the Plaintiff’s land.

B. The Defendant is the owner of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, the boundary between the Plaintiff and the instant land, and owned the Defendant’s building of the fourth floor size above the ground (hereinafter “the Defendant’s building”).

C. The appraiser F of the court of first instance conducted a survey and appraisal as to whether the instant building was invaded by the Plaintiff’s land. As a result, it was appraised that the instant building, among the Plaintiff’s land, was invaded by the following: (a) the sum of 11 square meters, including 10 square meters, 10 square meters, 14 square meters, and 11 square meters, and 11 square meters, among the instant land, of the instant land; (b) the said C/C and 44 (hereinafter “instant land dispute”).

(hereinafter “this case’s appraisal result”). / [Grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser F of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since part of the Defendant’s building of this case infringed on the land of this case, the Defendant is obligated to remove the building on the ground of the instant dispute to the Plaintiff, deliver the land of this case to the Plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from May 1, 2012, which the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the Plaintiff’s land to the completion date of delivery of the instant dispute.

B. Defendant 1’s appraisal result is not legitimate as it is not based on the surveying method base point at the time of registration in the initial cadastral record, and the Defendant’s building did not infringe on the Plaintiff’s land, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim.