(a) Attached Form 2 of Annex 1, as shown in (1), (2), and (3);

이 사건 토지 중 주문 기재 ㉠부분 55㎡, ㉡부분 646㎡, ㉢부분 153㎡, ㉣부분 270㎡ 위에는 미등기건물인 각 창고와 정비소 건물이 있다

(hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Where the ownership of a building constructed on another person's land is infringed on by reason of its construction, the person liable to remove the building is the owner of the building or the person liable to remove the building when the building is not registered, the person who can purchase it and dispose of it legally;

(Supreme Court Decision 87Meu257, 258 Decided November 24, 1987). According to the evidence No. 3, the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “Irre, around June 8, 2017, newly constructed each of the buildings of this case and used it as a joint grave for rice plants, but as the transfer cost cannot be raised due to the business problem, Irre the Plaintiff.” Thus, the Defendants are the owners of each of the buildings of this case or are in a position to dispose of each of the buildings of this case, which are unregistered buildings.

Furthermore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendants’ rights to each of the instant buildings are jointly owned and their shares are presumed to be equal (Article 262(2) of the Civil Act). Therefore, the Defendants, seeking the exclusion of disturbance as owners of the instant land, are obligated to remove each of the instant buildings and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff with respect to each of the 1/3 shares of the Plaintiff.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted.