1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 263.5 square meters, each point is indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff acquired the ownership on December 11, 2017 with respect to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 263.5 square meters, and D large 201.3 square meters are land that the Defendant acquired the ownership on November 18, 2003.

B. Of the land owned by the Plaintiff, the part of “b” part 3.8 square meters in the ship that connects each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 to the land owned by the said Plaintiff (hereinafter “the part of the instant intrusion”) is occupied by the Defendant prior to the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership.

(c)

Since the Plaintiff acquired ownership, the appropriate rent for the part of the crime of this case (where no guarantee is granted) shall be as follows.

E [Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, the result of the appraiser F’s survey, the result of the appraiser G’s appraisal of rent, the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the instant crime to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to pay unfair profit equivalent to the rent corresponding to the location of the instant crime at the time of delivery or the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership after the Plaintiff acquired ownership during the period in which the Defendant occupied and used the part of the instant crime.

In regard to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the period of prescription has expired since H, a former owner, newly constructed a building on June 23, 1995. However, as seen earlier, insofar as the Plaintiff acquired on December 11, 2017, which was after the completion of the statute of limitations for acquiring the ownership of the part of the instant crime, the Defendant may not assert that he has acquired the prescription for possession against the Plaintiff (the date when the Defendant acquired ownership has not yet been 20 years as of the date when the ownership was acquired). Furthermore, the Defendant argued to the effect that the former owner of the instant crime has prevented the Plaintiff from erroneously installing a fence, but the former owner of the Plaintiff renounced the ownership of the part of the instant crime.

There is no evidence to see, there is no room for this problem, and there is also no room to see the duty of delivery and the duty of return of unjust enrichment arising from the violation of land boundary.