1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owned the land of this case in Yangju-si, E, 1,174 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendants, among the instant land, possess in fact 161 square meters of the flag and the board building in the part “A” in which the marks indicated in the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 11 are attached to the instant land, and 161 square meters of the attached drawing Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, and 12 are connected in the part “B” (each of the above buildings is an unregistered building as it does not have a building ledger).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, each entry and video Nos. 1 and 2, the result of survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants owned and possessed the building as above on the land owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants should remove 103 square meters of the asbestos slate building that connects each of the above points to each of the Plaintiff among the land in this case, and deliver 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 12 square meters of the “(i)” portion of “(i)” and the “161 square meters of the land in the instant case and the “161 square meters of the land in the instant case” and the “103 square meters of the land in the instant case.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The gist of the defendants' defense is that under a lease agreement with the plaintiff, the defendants possess the above building on one's own and the above building on the other's part's own. Thus, they do not have any obligation to remove the above building and deliver the building site.

In addition, even if the above lease contract was terminated, the defendants exercised their right to demand the purchase of the above buildings, so the plaintiff shall pay the defendants KRW 92,246,00, which is the total value of each of the above buildings.