1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Attached drawings among the real estate listed in the attached list 1, shall be indicated in (1), (2), (3), (4), and (1);

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) is purchased from C on February 20, 1991 from the Plaintiff’s owner, and the same year.

2. It is the land owned by the plaintiff who completed the registration of ownership transfer.

B. The Defendant, among the instant land, has built and occupied 15 square meters of a board warehouse on the part (b) part (i) of the instant land, which connects each point of the following: (5), (6), (7), (8), and (5) of the attached drawings, which are identical to 54 square meters of a cement wall, brick structure, and one-story house on the part (i) of the instant land.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) 2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition on the removal of the building and the occurrence of the duty to deliver the land, the Defendant is obligated to remove the building in this case to the Plaintiff unless it proves the right to occupy the land in this case and deliver the building in this case to the Plaintiff, and to deliver the building in this part 54 square meters and part 15 square meters

B. On September 15, 1976, the Defendant asserted that the prescription period for possession of the instant land was expired on September 15, 1996, since it received the donation of the said land from D, the owner of the instant land, and constructed and occupies the instant building.

However, despite the change of the owner of the instant land during the period of possession alleged by the Defendant, there is no evidence to specify the time of the construction of the instant building or the date on which the Defendant commenced possession of the instant land. The Defendant asserted that the instant land was donated from D and did not provide any explanation as to the circumstances, and instead, D sold the said land to C on June 23, 1990. The fact that C again sold the said land to the Plaintiff is without dispute between the parties, or that it is recognized in accordance with the purport of the entire pleadings and written evidence as stated in subparagraph 3 and all pleadings.

. The above.