1. The defendant has each point of indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, among the land size of 226 square meters in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs completed the registration of establishment of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 43833 on July 30, 2003, with respect to the registration of Suwon District Court Sung-nam District on June 29, 2003 on the Plaintiff’s land, Jung-gu, Sung-gu, Sung-gu (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

B. On May 15, 2001, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of ownership transfer under the receipt No. 30544 on June 2, 2003, with respect to the land of Suwon-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si E (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

C. The Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land adjoin each other, and the attached appraisal map among the Plaintiff’s land connects each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 with each point of the attached Table 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 (hereinafter “instant occupied part”) is laid underground, one of the septic tank and the sewerage pipe, respectively (hereinafter “instant pipe”). This is linked from the purification tank installed on the Defendant’s land and the sewage pipe installed on the Defendant’s land to the public sewage culvert, etc. laid underground on the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s land via the Plaintiff’s land.

The instant officer was owned and used by the Defendant since before 2003, and the Plaintiffs discovered the instant provisions only when they constructed a new building on the Plaintiff’s land around November 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 and Eul evidence 7 (including each number), and the result of the on-site verification by this court, the result of this court's commission of surveying and appraisal to the Sungnam branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the defendant occupied the occupied part of this case through the Section of this case and obstructed the plaintiffs' exercise of ownership against the plaintiff's land, the contract of this case is removed and the obligation to deliver the occupied part of this case to the plaintiffs.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion ① The instant officer is the former owner of the Plaintiff’s land prior to 30 years ago.