(a) A cement block structure with a 423 square meter above 423 square meters in Ansan-si, a single-story house 63.

(a) Text 1-A

The land described in the subsection (hereinafter “instant land”) and the order No. 1-B.

On June 13, 1995, Plaintiff A and C completed registration of preservation of ownership on the land listed in paragraph (2) (hereinafter “instant land”) in two-seven shares, and three-seven shares, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 14835, Jun. 13, 1995>

B. Text 1-A

With respect to the buildings listed in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant building”) the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 2, 1987 by H, on December 19, 201, on December 19, 2017, by Plaintiff A and C, on December 2/7, 2017, and by Plaintiff B, on December 18, 2017.

C. The defendants, which are mother and child land owners, are the first building of this case and the second building of this case constructed by them up to the date of closing the argument of this case, and No. 1-B of this case

Each of the buildings listed in the subsection (hereinafter referred to as “instant building 2”) is occupied and used.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings without dispute

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendants are obligated to deliver the building No. 1 of this case owned by the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs, and remove the building No. 2 of this case constructed on the land No. 1 and 2 of this case owned by the plaintiffs, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. First, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants cannot comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim as long as Defendant E’s license acquired the instant land Nos. 1 and 2, and the instant land and the instant building from the JJ’s father around 1964 or around 1946, or purchased the instant land No. 1 and the instant building No. 1, and subsequently occupied the instant land and the instant building on June 30, 2014. Since they succeeded to the Defendants’ possession, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they cannot comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim as long as they acquired by prescription the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 and the instant land No. 1 or the instant building No. 1 and the instant building No. 1.

Top the stop, written statements of Eul Nos. 4 to 6, and the witness.