A. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Forest land (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appointor C are co-owners of the buildings indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) located adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “instant building”) [Defendant (Appointed Party): 4/5 shares, 1/5 shares, 1/5 shares, hereinafter Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointor C].

B. The Defendants, while using the instant building, installed a simple roof and steel stairs on the 17 square meters of land in the ship (hereinafter “land in the instant dispute”) connected with each point of 1,2,6,5, and 1 in sequence among the Plaintiff’s land in the instant case, and occupied the said part by installing a simple roof and steel stairs. On August 30, 2014, while the instant lawsuit was pending, the Defendants removed a simplified roof and steel stairs, and only the wife part of the instant building was 1/3 of the area of the land in the instant dispute.

(C) Of the land in dispute of this case, the part where the eaves of the building in this case is invaded is located (hereinafter “the land in this case”).

The amount equivalent to the rent of the instant land is KRW 37,400 per month from April 15, 2014 to December 31, 2014, and KRW 38,020 per month from January 1, 2015.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 3's evidence, Eul 6's evidence, the result of the appraiser E's survey and appraisal, the result of appraiser F's appraisal of rent, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff seeks to remove the part of the instant building on the land and deliver the said land to the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants owned the instant building and possessed the instant land in question.

According to the above facts, as of the date of closing argument of this case, the defendants occupy only the land of this case among the land in dispute of this case as of the date of closing argument of this case. Thus, the defendants are not obliged to do so,