1. The defendant

A. Each point is indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 1, among the 352m2 and C 55m2 in a macro-si.

According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the result of the appraisal commission with regard to the Korea Land Information Corporation in this court, etc., the facts that are the land owned by the plaintiff, and the land owned by the defendant, and the land owned by the defendant, which is the land owned by the plaintiff, and the green living facilities, tank facilities, 12,3,4,7, and 1 of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 4 of the "(a)" connected each point in sequence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 4 of the same map among the above B and C, each of which is connected with "b" part No. 1, 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14, 14, and 4 of the same map connected each point in sequence with the same map No. 8, 9, 10,108.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the buildings or structures that he has been affected as above to the plaintiff, and deliver the parts "1" or "4" to the plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion that Article 242 of the Civil Act cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to the defendant's assertion, but Article 242 of the Civil Act applies to the case where the defendant seeks to alter or remove the building constructed by another person on the land owned by another person, and it is reasonable to view that the building constructed by another person cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to the case where the building structure built by another person intrudes on another person's adjacent land. Thus, the above argument by the

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.