A. On February 13, 1989, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale on the same day with respect to the land of the wife C 592 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

A1-1

B. D registered the instant building as its owner in around 1950 with respect to a wooden ground, string ground, a single-story house, 26.44 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land, and E completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 1, 1994. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 5, 1995 for inheritance by consultation division.

A1-2, 2, 1

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant cannot be deemed to have the right to own the building of this case on the ground of the land of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case to the plaintiff and deliver the site (hereinafter "the site of this case"), barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff had the right to possess the instant site for the purpose of owning the instant building, since the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the usage fee of the instant site. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a lease agreement on the instant site, etc., without merit, the Defendant

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim is based on the premise that the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000 per annum to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff unilaterally asserted that the Plaintiff paid the above money to the Plaintiff. Thus, insofar as there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the royalty of the instant site, the mere fact that the Defendant paid the money is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a lease agreement on the instant site.