1. The Defendants:

A. Among the land size of 867 square meters in Daegu-gu Dong-gu D, Daegu-gu, 867 square meters, each Plaintiff is marked with annexed drawings (appraisal drawings) 8, 7, 12, 11, 8.

1. The facts following the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the result of the on-site verification by this court, the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the survey and appraisal by the Vice-Governor of the Daegu Special Metropolitan City Headquarters of the Korea Intellectual Property Corporation.

The Plaintiff is the owner of the Daegu Dong-gu D major 867 square meters and the above ground housing and 111 square meters prior to F. Defendant B is the owner of G major 479 square meters and the above ground housing and E field 1,136 square meters, and Defendant C is the father of Defendant B, who resides in and manages the above land and housing.

B. The Defendants installed underground water pipes on the ground of 110 square meters on the part (i) part of (hereinafter “instant land”), which connected each point of the attached Table 8,7,12,11, and 8, among the land owned by the Plaintiff, among the land of the Plaintiff, and partly (240 cm x 40 cm x 40 cm) among the instant land.

C. The boundary line of land with the land of 1,136 square meters on the part of the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff and the land of 867 square meters on the part of the Defendant B owned by the Plaintiff is the line linking each point of the attached Table 11,12.

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. (1) According to the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to remove underground water pipes, spawned trees and support units installed on the ground of the instant land and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant land.

The plaintiff is also seeking removal of the signboards installed on the ground of 867m2 owned D.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants installed a sign on the above land as of the closing date of the pleadings of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above part of the allegation is without merit.

(2) The Plaintiff seeking the exclusion of interference with the installation of a fence shall own ownership on the instant land owned by himself.