(a) Of the attached drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 of the Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, and Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and D.

A. Since the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 738 square meters in Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”) on December 24, 2003, the Plaintiff owned the said land until now.

B. At the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership of the instant land, among the instant land and the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, a building on the ship connecting each point of Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 70 square meters in sequence

The instant building is an unregistered building, the preservation of ownership of which has not been registered.

C. On June 2012, E: (a) purchased and occupied the instant building; (b) sold the instant building to F on April 2013; and (c) transferred its possession to F.

F around May 2013, G (the same shall apply H before the opening of the name), G sold each of the instant buildings to the Defendant on or around June 2013 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) (hereinafter “G and the Defendant”) and the Defendant possessed the instant building since June 2013 until now.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 10 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4 evidence (including numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination as to the request for removal of buildings

A. (1) In a case where the ownership of a building constructed on another’s land is infringed upon, the person obligated to remove the building is the owner of the building or the person obligated to remove the building if the building is not unregistered (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu257, Nov. 24, 1987). The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is a person who can purchase the building of this case, the unregistered building, and currently occupy the building, and thus, the Defendant is able to dispose of the building in accordance with the law.

On the other hand, the defendant's rescission of the contract of this case with G.