1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Plaintiff’s forest E in the former North Chang-gun.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2, 1915, the Plaintiff’s fatherg F was registered as the assessment titleholder of the land E in the Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun on June 2, 1915.

B. The registration of the preservation of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was completed on November 23, 1992 as the 111531, which was received on November 23, 1992, with respect to the 7,431m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. C (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) connected each point of 100, 99, 98, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 100, among the instant land, in sequence, with the indication of the attached drawing indicating 100, 99, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 56, and 100, the part of 182 square meters in the same drawing on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “brea”), which connected each point of 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 101 in turn connected each point of 10, 100, 54 square meters in the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”). The Defendants, their children, inherited the rights and duties of the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the result of a request for measurement and appraisal to the senior branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation in the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants succeeded to the instant building owned by the Deceased, and succeeded to the possession of the instant land by the Deceased, and continued to occupy the instant land portion, which is the site for the ownership of the building.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant part of the building to the Plaintiff, and the co-inheritors’s duty to remove and deliver the building is indivisible in its nature, and the co-inheritors are liable to remove and deliver the building within the limit of their respective shares.

(See Supreme Court Decision 80Da756 delivered on June 24, 1980, etc.). The amount equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the land of this case according to each inheritance share.