2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants.

A. The Plaintiff was the owner of the instant land and the instant building without permission (hereinafter “instant land”) at Dongbcheon-si, C, 95 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On December 14, 2016, Defendant Dongducheon-si purchased the instant land from the Plaintiff in KRW 152,380,000 for a development project, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land following that.

C. Around August 2017, Defendant Dongbcheon-si removed the instant building, and Defendant B participated in the removal as the team leader.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants are liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff since the Defendants committed a tort to arbitrarily remove the instant building even though Defendant Dongbcheon-si purchased only the instant land and did not purchase the instant building. Although Defendant Dongbcheon-si purchased only the instant land from the Plaintiff and did not purchase the instant building, the Defendants’ removal of the instant building was based on the facts found out. Barring special circumstances, the Defendants’ above removal of the instant building constitutes an act infringing the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant building, and thus, the Defendants are liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff. 2) As to this, the Defendants proposed that the Plaintiff transfer the instant building to the Plaintiff at the time of purchasing the instant land. The Plaintiff’s oral consent was asserted that the removal of the instant building was not a tort, i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion that the removal of the instant building was not a tort. In light of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and evidence Nos. 4, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, as well as the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4.