1. The decision of the court of first instance is amended as follows, according to the defendant B's participation in the acceptance of the intervenor.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the area of 2,977 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On July 31, 2012, Defendant B: (a) purchased from K the adjacent land of 4,891 square meters (the part of the above land was divided into L or M’s each land on October 17, 2013, and the area was decreased to 2,131 square meters) prior to the subdivision; (b) the land of 4,106 square meters prior to D before the subdivision (the part of the above land was divided into N orO’s each land on October 17, 2013, and the area was reduced to 1,623 square meters; hereinafter “D land after subdivision”); and (c) the adjacent land was purchased from P Q 1,398 square meters, including Q 1,398 square meters; and (d) the ownership of each of the above land was transferred.

Defendant B commenced the construction of housing site upon obtaining permission for diversion of farmland and permission for development for the purpose of a housing site development and a housing site development project on the said 19 parcel of land.

C. On November 20, 2012, Defendant C (the representative G; hereinafter “Defendant C”) acquired ownership of H forest land 8,638 square meters (which was divided into 690 square meters of H forest land, 7,658 square meters of I forest land, and 290 square meters of R forest land on June 3, 2014) from K prior to the division of each land adjacent to the said land, and carried out part of the housing site creation works for the said Sriland (hereinafter “instant construction”). D.

From November 2012 to February 2013, the Defendant Company carried out the instant construction work on the basis of the adjoining land during the instant construction. During that process, the Defendant Company was found to have cut the part of “A” and 254 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “A”) connected in order to each point of the instant land indicated in the annexed drawings among the instant land, but suspended the said construction work upon receiving the Plaintiff’s claim and under the Plaintiff’s claim (see, e.g., dispute as to whether the scope of land cut down is a part of “A” or a part of “A”);

E. On the other hand, the land of this case is a width near D and T land boundary line prior to the division into a public road.