A. The instant building was owned by D. The C & 183 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the cement brick structure, brick structure, cement roof 61.08 square meters on the ground, 7.29 square meters on the underground room, and 1.10 square meters on the cement wall, brick structure, sloping roof, and 1.10 square meters on each floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”). The instant land was transferred to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on April 3, 2007, and the instant building was transferred on April 25, 2011.

B. Since May 2, 2016, the instant land was entrusted to the G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) after the ownership was transferred to the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

C. G, a trust agent of the instant land, filed a lawsuit against E, who continued to own the instant building, such as removal of the building, etc., by the Chuncheon District Court 2017Kadan52814. After E received a certain amount of money from G, G immediately removed the instant building and immediately delivered the instant land to G, and the decision of recommending settlement was finalized on September 20, 2017 by the said court, which included the details of removal of the instant building and delivery of the instant land to G.

G was subject to the Chuncheon District Court H alternative enforcement decision with respect to the removal of the instant building on November 5, 2018, but from the date of insane, the Defendant was unable to execute the said decision due to the Defendant residing in the instant building.

E. On November 29, 2018, the instant land filed for the registration of ownership transfer with the Plaintiff on the grounds of trust. On January 7, 2019, the Plaintiff attempted to remove the instant building with the execution clause succeeded to the decision of recommending reconciliation, but failed to proceed with the removal due to the Defendant living in the Republic of Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the defendant occupies and uses the building owned by the plaintiff, and he shall immediately leave the building of this case unless he proves the right to possess and use the building of this case.