A. Defendant B, each of the items indicated in the separate sheet No. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 16, indicated in the separate sheet No. 1.

A. On November 2, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 13, 2015 due to inheritance by consultation or division as to 3/11 shares of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 23, 198 with respect to D, 191 square meters adjacent to the land of this case.

Defendant C is a lessee of a building (Edong) constructed on the ground of the above D land.

C. Defendant B installed and managed the stairs and trees as stated in Section 1-A of the Disposition, and Defendant C has the possession of the land of this case in the case of installing and managing concrete packaging, water tank and tent as stated in Section 1-b of the Disposition No. 1-B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), appraiser F (Seoul National Land Information Corporation)'s appraisal results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants, the owners of shares in the land of this case, have the duty to remove the stairs, trees (Defendant B), concrete packaging, water tank, and tent (Defendant C), which are installed and managed on the above land by the Defendants, and deliver the above land to the Plaintiff, the owner of shares in the land of this case.

[On the other hand, in the reference document submitted on July 18, 2017, after the closing of argument, the Defendants asserted that the facilities, such as stairs, do not interfere with the Plaintiff’s land in light of the survey result map prepared at the time of construction of the building, etc., and raised a question about the result of the instant appraisal. However, the instant appraisal is conducted by means of surveying the location and area of each land and facility with the clear purpose of specifying the location and area of each facility, and it does not seem to have any part of raising a separate question about the method of appraisal. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion on this part is difficult to accept.

As to this, the Defendants have long-term period.