1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff by adding up the parts resulting from the participation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a D-2096 square meters of land for a factory in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “D”) and the Defendant’s Intervenor, as the neighboring land, was 2886 square meters of land E in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “E land”), and the Defendant’s Intervenor was 542 square meters of land for a factory in question, while the land category change and merger were 286 square meters of land during the lawsuit, but there was no influence

The defendant's assistant intervenor was the owner of the land. The defendant's assistant intervenor filled up the land E including the part of 13 square meters in the ship stated in the claim(2) and the part of 23 square meters in the ship(c) and filled up the retaining wall above.

C. Meanwhile, around April 26, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for E land.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 15, Eul evidence 1, 21-1, 22-2, Gap evidence 1, 25-1, Gap evidence 29-1, Gap evidence 29-2, Gap evidence 34-1, 5, 6, 7, Gap evidence 36-1, Gap evidence 42-1, Gap evidence 44, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 9-1, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 14-1, 14, Eul evidence of appraiser F-34-1, 5, Gap evidence 36-1 through 5, Gap evidence 44, 45, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence of 14, Eul evidence of appraiser F-14, results of appraisal of appraiser evidence]

2. The defendant and the defendant's assistant intervenor on the ground of the main safety defense of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case, and the part seeking removal of the ground reclamation soil on each of the part of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case should be dismissed in an unspecified manner in the purport of the claim. Thus, according to the above evidence, this part of the plaintiff's claim can be acknowledged as specifically specifying the contents and scope of the claim. Thus, the main safety defense of the defendant and the defendant's assistant intervenor is without merit.

(A) If it is impossible to distinguish the filled parts, as alleged by the Defendant, etc., it constitutes a combination of claims, and it cannot be viewed as an unspecified purport of the claim).

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the case.