1. The Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff into the claim of 274m2 in Gangseo-si 291m2, but the actual area on the appraisal map is the actual area.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired ownership through public sale on November 27, 2017 with respect to the 291 square meters in Gangnam-si D (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 11, 2017.

B. Defendant B is entitled to the disposition of this case’s land

building and facilities mentioned in paragraph (1) are owned.

C. Defendant C is an order of this case’s land No. 1-B

building and facilities mentioned in paragraph (1) are owned.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1 and Eul evidence No. 2, the result of this court's commission of surveying and appraisal of the appraiser Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to remove the buildings and facilities owned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and deliver the pertinent land as a removal of interference based on the Plaintiff’s land ownership.

3. On the determination of the defendants' defense, the defendants asserted that the defendants succeeded to the possession of the former owner by donation or purchase of each building located over the land in Gangseo-si and the land in this case, adjacent to the land in this case, and possessed possession with the intention of ownership for not less than 20 years, and thus, they acquired the prescription period for possession of each relevant land.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2, the possessor of the building owned by the Defendant B on March 26, 1996, on which the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant B was made on July 18, 2014, and on the building owned by the Defendant C, the ownership transfer registration under the name of G was made on March 5, 1984, and on August 6, 2014, respectively, on which the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant C was made on August 6, 2014. However, even if the acquisition by prescription for the possession of the real estate was completed, the possessor cannot oppose the third party unless the ownership transfer registration is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da56495, Apr. 10, 1998).