1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the same administrative district of Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “the same administrative district name omitted”) in the auction procedure.

The Plaintiff, as the owner of the above C’s land, asserts that the Defendant, who is the owner of the above C’s land and building adjacent thereto, owned a fence by breaking the boundary as shown in the attached Form, and owned a fence, and accordingly, owned the C5.9 square meters of the land corresponding to the wall’s site, he/she seeks removal and delivery of the fence.

B. In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings, Nonparty E can recognize the fact that, prior to May 1995, the building site and the wall site falling under the outer wall were occupied by the Defendant through F, etc., and the Defendant was occupied by the former succession after the completion of the construction of the aforementioned D building. In addition, Nonparty E can recognize the fact that it occupied the building site and the wall site falling under the outer wall at the time of construction of the said D building.

At this time, the possessor is presumed to have occupied as his/her own will in a peaceful and public performance, and there is no circumstance to conclude that the possession by the defendant and his/her predecessor is an unauthorized possession without the intention of possession.

In addition, as in the instant case, in a case where the possession, which forms the basis of the acquisition by prescription, continues to continue to be more than the statutory period by succession, a person who asserts the completion of the acquisition by prescription, has the right to assert only his own possession or at the same time his own possession and the former possessor’s possession. In addition, a person who claims the completion of the acquisition by prescription has the right to choose to assert both the former possessor’s possession and the former possessor’s possession, even in a case where the former possessor

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da56822, Apr. 10, 1998). If the circumstances are the same, the aforementioned fenced around May 2015 when the period from May 1995 to May 20 years elapsed.