A. Of the 2,893 square meters in a permanent address, the attached Form No. 12, 3, 4, 14, 13, and 12 shall be attached hereto.

A. As to the cause of the claim, the Defendants constructed a warehouse (hereinafter “instant building”) on the part (A) of 52 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant dispute land”) connected with the No. 12,3,4, 14, 14, and 12 in sequence among the No. 2,893 square meters in the case of residence owned by the Plaintiff at the time of residence owned by the Plaintiff, and used the building, may be recognized if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is displayed in the evidence No. 1 through No. 3.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to remove the instant building to the Plaintiff and deliver the instant dispute land to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion 1) around 1982, the Defendants concluded a lease agreement with E, the former owner of the land in question, and newly constructed the instant building on the land in question. Since the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status under the said lease agreement between E and the Defendants, the Defendants cannot comply with the removal of the instant building and the delivery of the instant land in question until the lease agreement is terminated. 2) The reasoning of the judgment in the document No. 6 is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants concluded a lease agreement with E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the land in question with E, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant succeeded to the lessor’s status under that lease agreement.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

Meanwhile, even if the Defendants stated to the effect that they occupy the land in the instant case in a peaceful and open manner for 35 years, it may be understood to the effect that they assert the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession. However, insofar as the Defendants asserted that they leased and used the land in the instant case, such possession is deemed as possession based on their own intent.