The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff, based on the premise that the Defendant is the de facto and de facto disposal authority for the instant house and warehouse, sought the removal of the instant fence, house, and warehouse and the delivery of the key part of the instant land.

In a case where a building constructed on another's land is unregistered and the ownership of the building is infringed upon due to such building, the person in a position to legally and practically dispose of the building is obligated to remove the building (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da11278 delivered on June 11, 1991). However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has the above status, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

3. The reasoning for this court’s judgment as to the conjunctive claim is as follows: (a) the part on “A. Plaintiff’s assertion” (excluding the part on the claim for delivery of the key part of the land in this case) and the part on “a.) judgment as to the claim for eviction 7” in the first instance judgment are as stated in the second instance judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's main claim added at the trial according to the plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and since the conjunctive claim is well-grounded, the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the conjunctive claim is just in conclusion. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the plaintiff's main claim added at the trial of the court of first instance is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.