1. The Defendant connects the Plaintiff with each point of the attached Form 7, 8, 9, and 7, among the area of 96 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul.

1. Basic facts are owned by the Plaintiff who completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 16, 200. The fact that the Defendant owned a building on the ground surface adjacent to the instant land, and installed a toilet and a retaining wall on the ground of “B” part of the instant land, which was connected in order to each of the facts indicated in the attached drawing Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 7, and that the Defendant occupied the toilet and a retaining wall on the ground of “B” portion of the instant land, can be recognized as either the dispute between the parties or the entire purport of the pleadings as a result of the request for appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove the toilets and retaining walls on the ground of “B” owned by the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, and deliver the above part of the land to the Plaintiff.

B. On June 29, 1968, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's house was constructed and sold in sequential order by the owner at the time, and the defendant purchased and occupied the land on March 11, 2014. Since the prescription period for acquisition by possession was completed on June 29, 198, the plaintiff asserted that the ownership of "B" should be transferred to the defendant. However, as to the third party who acquired the ownership of real estate after completing the registration of ownership transfer before the completion of the prescription period, the defendant cannot claim the prescriptive acquisition unless the registration in the name of the third party is null and void (Supreme Court Decision 92Da21258 delivered on September 25, 1992). Since the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case on March 16, 200, the acquisition by prescription of the defendant's assertion, the defendant cannot claim the acquisition by prescription against the plaintiff.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.