1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The judgment of the first instance is rendered in accordance with the expanded and reduced claims by this court.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) on April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff: (b) was the Plaintiff’s 241 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On May 3, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D’s land adjacent to the instant land and the above ground wooden stude and one-story 62.06m2 (hereinafter “instant building”).

3) Of the instant building, the eaves and retaining walls among the eavess and retaining walls are 12 square meters in part 2 in the ship connected in order to each point of the attached Form No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 9 among the instant land (hereinafter “the part of the instant intrusion”).

) An offense is committed. [The facts of no dispute over the basis of recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4, the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation in the appellate court, the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has a duty to remove the wife and retaining wall on the ground part of the intrusion part of this case and deliver the above land to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. On February 13, 1997, the defendant's defense 1) completed the registration of ownership preservation on the building of this case and owned the building of this case in a peaceful and public performance manner, and the defendant succeeded to the part of this case's intrusion upon completing the registration of ownership transfer on May 3, 2010 and occupied the building of this case E in a peaceful and public performance manner. Accordingly, since E and the defendant occupied the part of the intrusion of this case for twenty (20) years, the acquisition by prescription was completed on February 13, 2017. Thus, it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's request. 2) The fact that the registration of ownership preservation on the building of this case was completed on February 13, 1997 does not conflict between the parties.

However, on December 26, 2016, before the expiration of 20 years from February 13, 1997, the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit is apparent in the record, and the said prescriptive acquisition is so obvious.