The plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the selected parties, and the network E.

A. As to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 2 list, the Plaintiff is a co-owner who owns 2/3 shares, 1/3 shares, 10 shares, 10 shares, 5/210 shares, and 5/210 shares in the land listed in paragraph (2) of the same list (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The network E is the owner of the building listed in Annex 2 List 3 (hereinafter “instant building”) located on the ground of the instant land.

C. As the network E dies on November 23, 2016, the Defendants jointly inherited the deceased E (Defendant B 3/7, Defendant C, and Defendant D 2/7 shares) and reported to accept the qualified acceptance on January 4, 2017 by filing a report on the inheritance of an inheritee E’s property under the branch of the Daegu Family Court Branch of 2016-Ma609.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff and the appointed parties within the scope of the property inherited from the network E, Defendant B and Defendant C and D have the duty to remove the instant building with respect to their respective 2/7 shares, and to deliver the instant land.

3. Defendant D’s assertion on the instant building asserted the application of Article 288 of the Civil Act on the ground that the right to collateral security was established with respect to the instant building, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the right to collateral security as alleged, and the said assertion is without merit.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by changing the judgment of the court of first instance as above.