A. In order, each point of the attached Form 8, 9, 10, 11, and 8 on the land of 1,507 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si.

A. In full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the written evidence No. 1 and the commission of appraisal to the Korea Land Information Corporation of this Court, the Plaintiff owned the land of this case 1,507 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). around March 7, 201, the Defendant purchased from D the land of this case with indication 8,9,10,11, and8 of the attached Form No. 12,13,14,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 20, 23, 24, 24, 25, 225, and 30,000 square meters of the instant land (B), the portion of each of the instant land owned by the Defendant in sequence with each of the items of 19 square meters of warehouse, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 122.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, as the de facto disposal authority of the building of this case, is obligated to remove the building of this case to the plaintiff and deliver the occupied part of the land of this case to the defendant, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense is not allowed to seek removal of the building of this case and delivery of the land of this case without any specific purpose to the land of this case since it constitutes an abuse of rights.

However, if the exercise of the right is a subjective purpose to inflict pain and damage on the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and it can be viewed that it violates the social order objectively, the exercise of the right is not allowed as an abuse of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5498, Mar. 25, 2005).