1. The defendant has indicated 8,4,5, 11, 10, 9, 8 among the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff (appointed party).

Facts of recognition

The deceased C (Death around October 2008) donated the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). On April 25, 1990, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer as to 1/3 of their respective shares out of the above land.

D and E purchased the forest land of Gyeonggi-gu E from the net C on June 22, 2000, and thereafter developed and divided it.

E on November 14, 2001

On May 28, 2004, H and I sold the said land to G and I, which was divided into the land indicated in the port, after completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of Gyeonggi-gun G-gun, 683 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

H and I constructed a house on the Defendant’s land. On November 27, 2006, the above land and the house were sold to J. On November 20, 2007, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 20th of the following month after he purchased the above land and the house from J on November 20, 207.

D and E stockpiled stone (hereinafter “the instant stone axis”) on the boundary of the instant land and the Defendant’s land in around 2000. The instant stone shed mixs part (B) of the ship connected in order to each point of the attached table Nos. 8, 4, 5, 11, 10, 9, and 8 among the instant land, and is 12 square meters (hereinafter “the instant part of the instant land”).

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3 through 5 (including each number), appraiser K's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings.

Judgment

According to the above facts, since the defendant owned the instant stone and infringed on the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs, part of the tin axis and gate in the affected part of the instant stone shall be removed and delivered to the plaintiffs.

As to this, the Defendant agreed not to raise any objection as to the violation of the instant land upon receiving a mutual agreement from C and E around 2007, the Defendant stated that “The instant claim is unreasonable.”