beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 16, 1988, the Plaintiffs purchased co-ownership shares of 360 square meters in Busan Dongdong-gu G, Busan (hereinafter “instant land”) from E and F, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 17, 1998. The Defendant, around April 15, 2003, purchased the instant land from H, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 17, 1998. The Defendant, on April 15, 2003, purchased the I large 202 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”) and 67.11 square meters in the instant land (hereinafter “the instant housing”).
He purchased B and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 12, 2003.
B. Meanwhile, prior to the Defendant’s transfer of ownership of the neighboring land of this case and the housing of this case from H, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 16, 191 with respect to the land adjacent to this case and the housing of this case from J on May 16, 191, from K on June 30, 200 to H on June 30, 200.
C. The fence of this case is 'the fence of this case' on the fence of the housing of this case.
(D) The above fence was installed, and the above fenced 39 square meters in sequence with each point of 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 1 among the land of this case, and the housing of this case located inside the above fenced 15 square meters in part of the above "B" as part of the above "B". D. The defendant owned the housing of this case and the wall of this case and occupied and used the above part as the site, and occupied and used the house of this case after installing a roof between the above fence and the above house and altering it into an indoor space. E. The defendant extended the house of this case around May 29, 2003 to 23.87 square meters, and the extension part was located inside the wall of this case, and there was no relation with the above part "B" as part on the inside the wall of this case, and there was no ground for dispute as to the relation between the witness of this case and the witness of this case as of November 6, 1987.