1. The Defendants indicated in the attached Form No. 43, 44, 45, and 45, indicated in the attached Form No. 43, 43, 45, among the 6,112 square meters of Gangwon-gun D, Gangwon-gun

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 9, 201, the Plaintiff, E, and F completed the registration of ownership transfer by purchasing 1/3 shares of 6,112 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) of each of 6,112 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) before Gangnam-gun, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do.

B. The Defendants, among the instant land, occupied and used a toilet on the ground of one square meter in the part of “1 square meter” as indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article, a warehouse on the ground of 21 square meter in the part of “21 square meter”, and a Gu roof on the ground of 67 square meters in the part of “cream” (hereinafter the foregoing toilets, warehouses, and Gu houses combined with the above parts)

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Korean Intellectual Property Association, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to remove each of the buildings of this case to one of the co-owners of the land of this case, and deliver the part of each of the lands of this case to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants concluded a land lease agreement for the ownership of each of the instant buildings from the owner of the instant land before about 40 years ago, and owned each of the instant buildings, and thus, they cannot deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff until receiving KRW 30,00,000, which is the value of each of the instant buildings from the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Defendants as to whether they leased the land of this case for the purpose of owning each of the buildings of this case on the sole basis of the entries in the evidence Nos. 2-4 of this case in the situation where there is no evidence, such as health expenses, lease contract, and payment of rent, etc.

Even if the Defendants leased the instant land, there is no evidence to deem that the value of each of the instant buildings reaches KRW 30,000,000.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is difficult to accept.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case.