A. On August 9, 2007, the Plaintiffs purchased an O 19,537 square meters, M Forest 2,640 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) and Q 345 square meters, R Forest 2,45 square meters, and R Forest 2,454 square meters from the net P on August 9, 2007, and completed the registration of ownership transfer by each share on August 10, 2007 (Plaintiff A2/10, Plaintiff B2/10, Plaintiff C3/10, Plaintiff D3/10, and Plaintiff D3/100). According to the sale of all of their shares on April 13, 2012 to Plaintiff B, Plaintiff A, B, and C shared each of the instant land as their shares (Plaintiff A2/10, Plaintiff B5/10, Plaintiff C3/10, Plaintiff C3/10).

B. At the time when the plaintiffs purchased each of the instant lands from the network P, there was a new building built on the ground of each of the instant lands around June 5, 1996 by the network P around June 5, 196.

C. Meanwhile, in around 2012, the network P newly constructed the instant storage depot on the ground of M land.

As the network P died on June 7, 2014, the Defendants and Defendant deceased, who were children, succeeded to the network P. On March 8, 2018, the deceased on March 8, 2018, H, I, and J taken over the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1-7 (including a branch number, if any), Eul evidence No. 1, and the result of the appraisal commission to the chief of the sexual branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Following the completion of harvest of rice in 2007, the Plaintiffs agreed to remove the instant building and the storage area at the end of the removal agreement.

In light of the fact that each of the instant lands was cultivated by leasing and cultivating from the Plaintiffs in 2008, the said agreements were concluded to remove the instant building and the storage area. However, in light of the fact that the said agreements are not entirely included in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (a sales contract and lease contract of each of the instant lands), the witness S’s testimony that seems consistent with the said assertion is not trustable, but can be acknowledged differently.