1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) remove and remove the below structures from among the structures on the ground of the land listed in the annex 1 list;

In full view of the judgment on the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including each number), the result of appraisal commission to appraiser B of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the land listed in the annexed sheet No. 1 (hereinafter "the land of this case") is owned by the plaintiff. The defendant constructed each warehouse, vinyl house, brick building, vinyl house, plastic house, and board board building (hereinafter "each structure of this case") indicated in the annexed sheet No. 2, and existing possession of the land of this case.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to remove and remove each of the structures of this case to the plaintiff and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted the prescriptive acquisition by prescription has commenced from the beginning of the early 1970s to occupy the land of this case and has occupied it in a peaceful and public manner with intent to own the land of this case for 20 years. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations for acquiring the land of this case has expired in early 190s.

Whether or not the possessor's possession is an independent possession with the intention of possession or with the intention of possession without the intention of possession should not be determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title giving rise to the acquisition of possession or all circumstances related to the possession, it should be determined externally and objectively.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da72743 delivered on February 26, 2002, etc.). There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant commenced possession of the land of this case with the intention of possession with an objective title at the time when the Defendant commenced possession of the land of this case. However, considering the fact that the Defendant, by himself, declared that he had commenced possession of the land of this case while growing seedlings and growing a flowers on the land of this case, which was abandoned since the early 1970s, was abandoned, the Defendant’s possession is bad faith.