A. Defendant B is the owner of the building indicated in the attached Table No. 135㎡ in Jeju-si (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff owned one-fourth share of 1/4,00 square meters in I, Jeju-si adjacent to the said land (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

B. At the time of the new construction, the instant building was affected by the part (B) of the size of 13 square meters in the ship connected with each point of the Plaintiff’s land indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 13, 14, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 13 (hereinafter “the instant part”) among the Plaintiff’s land. On May 14, 1980, J, the owner of the instant building, was established by K, who was the owner of the instant land, a superficies of “7 square 5 square bbbes” including the said part of the instant part of the instant land, with the term “30 years from May 14, 1980” as the term “30 years from May 14, 1980.

C. On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant B seeking restitution following the extinguishment of superficies (the counterclaim against the Plaintiff by Defendant B). On February 15, 2013, the Jeju District Court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, which included the purport that “Defendant B shall remove the building on the part of the instant intrusion and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff,” and the said judgment (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”) became final and conclusive as it is.

[In the first instance: Jeju District Court 201Da19163, 2012Gadan7235 (Counterclaim), second instance: Jeju District Court 2013Na584, 2013Na676 (Counterclaim), third instance: Supreme Court 2014Da19394, 2014Da19400 (Counterclaim).

On April 1, 2013 for provisional execution immediately after the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff attempted to execute the instant erosion part of the instant building with the Jeju District Court L on April 1, 2013 upon receiving a decision to substitute the removal of the building. However, the Jeju District Court enforcement officer rendered an impossible disposition on April 10, 2014 on the ground that it is impossible to execute the execution on the ground that the underground floor, the first floor, and the second floor of the instant building is occupied by persons other than the Defendant B

E. Attached list as of the date of closing of the instant argument.