A. The plaintiffs and the defendant are children of the network D.

B. On May 28, 2001, the Defendant newly constructed a building listed in paragraph (1) of the Attached List (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land listed in the Attached List No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of initial ownership in the Defendant’s name.

C. Meanwhile, on June 1, 2001, the network D donated each share of 651/206 of the instant land to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the said donation on June 11, 2001.

After February 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs shared 1/2 shares as to the instant land after completing the registration of ownership transfer due to the partition of co-owned property on February 15, 2017, as to 383.5 shares (E owned shares) out of the instant land on February 17, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The consent contract for land use between the network D and the defendant was withdrawn, and the plaintiffs did not succeed to the above contract. Since the defendant occupied the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs as the owner of the building of this case without title, it is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiffs.

B. If the loan agreement for use of the land of this case remains in existence, the plaintiffs are obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendant had a third party use and take profits from the borrowed object without the consent of the lender, and the period sufficient to use and take profits has elapsed.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts as seen earlier, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant possesses the instant building and occupies the instant land owned by the Plaintiffs, barring any special circumstance.