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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E. E. 53.9 square meters and F.13.2 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

B. On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Southern District Court 2015dan27785) against the deceased’s heir, who is the owner of the building without permission listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) constructed on each of the instant land against H and I, and a compromise was established between the aforementioned parties to remove the instant building and deliver each of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

C. Defendant C occupies and uses 52.9 square meters inside the instant building, which connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the instant building (hereinafter “the first possession part”), and Defendant D occupies and uses 49.8 square meters inside the instant building, which connects each point of 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the instant building in sequence.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Even in cases where the owner of land is entitled to demand the owner of the building to remove the building or deliver its site on account of a lack of the right to use the building for its existence, if a person other than the owner of the building occupies the building, the owner of land shall not implement the removal, etc. of the building unless such building is removed;

Therefore, the ownership of land at that time is deemed to be hindered in the smooth realization of the land by the aforementioned possession. As such, the landowner may claim withdrawal from the building owner as an exclusion of interference based on his/her own ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43801, Aug. 19, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants, who are the occupants of the instant building, are the occupants of the instant building, barring special circumstances.