The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties are co-owners of 245 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in macro-si.

The Defendant owned a house registered as “36.36 square meters of a single-story house of cement block structure 1 on the ground of large-scale C,” and also owned a warehouse for which the Plaintiff seeks removal (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).

The above houses and warehouses are most located on the D road, which is adjacent to the land of this case, and the above warehouse is a state where appraisal of the attached Table 2, 3, 4, 5, and 2, connected each point of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant dispute part”).

【In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and appraiser E’s survey and appraisal result, the defendant held that the warehouse of this case was owned by inheritance from F. The defendant held that the part of the dispute of this case among the land of this case owned by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties through the ownership of the warehouse of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the part above the ground of the dispute of this case among the warehouse of this case and deliver the part of the dispute of this case to the plaintiff (appointed party).

Furthermore, even though the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) sought a fee of KRW 25 million for the 41 year fee for the dispute part of the instant case, the Plaintiff did not follow the verification procedures, such as an application for land rents appraisal, which is capable of calculating the relevant fee, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the fee cannot be accepted.

In conclusion, the plaintiff (Appointed party)'s claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition with reasons, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.