1. The Defendant points out to the Plaintiff each point of the attached Table 1 to 14, and 1 among the land size of 89,752 square meters in Seosan-si.

1. Basic facts

A. D (Death on September 11, 1980) purchased C Forest land of 89,752 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) in Seosan-si and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 6, 1965.

E (Death on February 15, 2007) succeeded to some of the shares in the forest of this case from D, and F, from E, some of the shares in the forest of this case.

B. On the instant forest land, the land of this case is located in the 95 square meters in the ship connecting each point of 1 to 14, and 1 each point of 95 square meters in the attached Table 1 to 15, and the land of 103 square meters in the order of each point of 15 to 18, and 15, the land of 103 square meters in the part of 103 square meters in the ship connecting each point of 103 square meters in the same drawing, and the warehouse of 20 square meters in the 3rd section in the ship connecting each point of 20 square meters in the same drawing, and the 23 to 26, and 23 square meters in the same drawing. Each of the instant housing, etc. is unregistered real estate.

The Plaintiff newly built each of the instant houses around 1994 and occupied it from that time.

C. On May 1, 2015, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with F to rent approximately KRW 5,000 of the entrance part of the instant forest land from F, and thereafter, purchased each of the instant housing units, etc. and occupied them.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver each of the houses of this case to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the F has a legitimate right to possess each of the instant houses, etc. since he leased them from F.

① However, even after examining the lease contract submitted by the Defendant, there is insufficient evidence to view that the Defendant leased each of the instant houses on the land, etc. on the ground, since approximately 5,000 of the entrance part among the instant forest land was stipulated as the leased object.