A. In 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for removal of structures and site delivery (Seoul District Court 2002Kadan212341, hereinafter the previous lawsuit) against the Defendants and D.

Defendant B proceeded with the lawsuit as the designated party.

On November 21, 2003, the Seoul District Court rendered a favorable judgment (hereinafter the previous judgment) on the Plaintiff’s entire land that “Dives reinforced concrete structure (hereinafter the instant structure) installed on the 345 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul E, and delivered the said site.”

B. The Defendants did not implement the above judgment.

The Plaintiff applied for alternative enforcement, etc. based on the executory exemplification of the above judgment.

On March 24, 2004, this Court rendered a ruling to require the enforcement officer entrusted by the Plaintiff to remove the instant structure, and the Defendants and D jointly and severally paid KRW 26,907,100 to the Plaintiff (F, G).

C. After that, the Plaintiff removed the instant structure at the expense of KRW 26,907,100.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts found by the Defendants’ obligation to pay expenses, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 26,907,100 won for removal of the instant structure and 5% interest per annum under the Civil Act from June 7, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of final delivery of the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. As to the Defendant C’s assertion, the summary of the argument was that Defendant C did not install and possess the instant structure, and the fact that the previous lawsuit was brought against the Defendant B was not designated as the designated party. Therefore, the instant claim is unreasonable on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not have the duty to remove the instant structure. 2) According to the purport of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the entire pleadings and arguments, Defendant C was previous on August 19, 2014.