1. The defendant removes the building indicated in the attached list 2 to the plaintiff, and delivers the land indicated in the attached list 1 to the plaintiff.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the result of the request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this court, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the fact that part of the building listed in the attached Table No. 2, which is part of the building owned by the defendant, is located on the ground of the land listed in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's land"), can be acknowledged, barring any special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to remove the building in the part of the course of the claim and deliver the above land to the plaintiff.

Judgment on the defendant's argument

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant constructed a new building with the consent of use from the owner of the land at the time of the construction of the defendant building. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant obtained such consent, and the above argument is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's right to remove part of the defendant's building constitutes an abuse of right, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. 35 years have passed since the defendant newly built the defendant's building and 35 years have passed since the acquisition by prescription of possession on the part of the building listed in the annexed Table No. 2 among the plaintiff's land has been completed, the defendant's assertion is without merit, even though approval for use was granted on February 17, 1981, but there is no other evidence to prove that the part of the crime was occupied in peace and openly for 20 years or more with the intention of possession.

(Y) The Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s land on August 21, 2016, after the prescriptive acquisition has been completed, even if it is recognized that the Defendant and the owner of the previous Defendant building occupied the relevant part of the building for at least 20 years as an intention to possess it in a peaceful and openly, from the date of approval for use of the building. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s land cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff.