The defendant has each point in the order of indication 1, 2, 4, 5, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the area of 194 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Jeonjin-gu, Seoul.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s wife D and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to one half of each of the land indicated in the disposition on April 6, 2006 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On March 31, 1994, F newly constructed a building on the land in the separate sheet on the land and obtained approval for use on December 12, 2003. G completed the registration of ownership transfer on the adjacent land and the building on the separate sheet on the land on December 24, 2003 (hereinafter “instant building”). G extended B around 2006, after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as to the adjacent land and the building on the separate sheet on the land on the ground of sale.

C. Of the instant land, the instant building intrudes on the following: (a) the size of the instant land indicated in the attached Form Nos. (a) and the part of the same drawing indication (b) and the part of the building indicated in the same drawing (a) and (b) plus the said part of the land; and (b) the said building is called “land in the instant dispute.”

The Defendant leased the instant building from G and occupied it.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The right to claim the removal of interference based on the ownership is an act of preserving the jointly owned property and can be exercised even one of the co-owners, and according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has a duty to leave the part of the land in question to the plaintiff who is one of the co-owners of the land in this case from 1m2 of the land in this case and 2m2 of the building in this case.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.