1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall remove the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list and set out in paragraph 1 of the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased land listed in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the State through public sale process and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 3, 2015.

B. On September 20, 1961, Defendant B (B prior to the opening of name) constructed a building listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land without any specific title, and the Defendants reside in the instant building.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, Defendant B newly built the instant building without any specific title, and subsequently occupied the instant land by the Defendants residing in the instant building, according to the determination on the removal of the instant building and the request for the delivery and removal of the instant land.

As such, Defendant B is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, and Defendant C is obligated to leave the instant land.

(1) The Defendants asserted that there was a defect in the public auction procedure, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this). Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the prescription period for the acquisition of possession was expired since they occupied the land of this case with the intent to own the land of this case since 1961. However, even if the prescription period for the acquisition of possession of the land of this case was completed, the transfer registration of ownership was completed to a third party on the real estate between the land of this case and the land of this case without registration. Thus,

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da56495 delivered on April 10, 1998, etc.). Furthermore, the Defendants were unable to perform the obligation to transfer ownership registration on the ground of completion of prescriptive acquisition by selling the instant land to the Plaintiff with the knowledge that the State had completed the prescriptive acquisition, thereby transferring the ownership transfer registration to the Plaintiff.