1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case is set forth in the judgment of the court of first instance No. 2.

A. The part of “judgment” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal as follows. Thus, as to the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession, as to whether the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession was completed, E occupied the occupied part of this case in peace and openly and openly with the intent to own it for 20 years, and the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession of this case was completed around November 18, 1994.

In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that the possession of E is an unauthorized possession in bad faith, in light of the fact that the area of the part (51 square meters) occupied over the boundary of the instant land is considerable to 14% of the total area of E-owned land (364 square meters).

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 10, 12, and 17 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and video, E purchases the F land and a building existing on its ground according to the current status from the former owner. The land owned by E and the land in this case as well as the land in its surrounding areas form a real boundary at a place less than a certain distance from the cadastral boundary in the cadastral map, thereby impairing the boundary of each other’s neighboring land; although E is the area of the part over which the Plaintiff owned the land is 51 square meters, the area of the part over which E actually occupied is 58 square meters and the area of the part included on the road among the land owned by the Plaintiff is 51 square meters and is not larger than the area on which E actually occupied by the area included on the road, it is difficult to view that the presumption of autonomous possession of E solely on the above ground as above was broken, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B) Whether the Defendant is entitled to claim the completion of the prescription period for acquisition by possession against the Plaintiff (the possessor of land, the prescriptive acquisition period of which expires shall expire).