A. The attached Form 2,317 square meters and the attached Form 1,111 square meters prior to 801 square meters of the same Ri, Dong-dong, Yacheon-si, Yacheon-si.

A. On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the 799 Seo-dong, Yacheon-si, Yacheon-do and 1,111 square meters prior to 801 square meters prior to the same Ri (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

B. On July 10, 2014, the Defendant (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd.) completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) and the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to the 71-5 square meters and its ground adjacent to each of the instant land, Seocheon-dong, Do-si, Seocheon-si, Incheon Special Metropolitan City.

C. The instant building, which is owned by the Plaintiff, is constructed with a part of 173 square meters in the ship, which connects each point of (i) and 45, 44, 42, 42, 41, 22, 23, 24, 24, and 45 of drawings, among each of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, each point of which is indicated in the attached drawing Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40, 40, and 37.

[1] The part (a) and (b) of the above (hereinafter referred to as "the part in violation of this case"] / [based on recognition] / [The part in violation of this case] /] / The entry in Gap Nos. 1 and 5 (including the number number), the result of the request for surveying and appraisal to the private offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, the owner of each of the instant building, is obligated to remove the part constructed on the part of the instant crime among the instant building, which was the owner of each of the instant land, and deliver the said part of the crime to the Plaintiff.

(A) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff should pay 8,589,119 won to the defendant for the removal or use of the building of this case, but the defendant did not give any assertion as to the legal ground for claiming payment of the above amount against the plaintiff, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit). 3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.