1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number) as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant container and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, since it is recognized that the Defendant installed a container on the ground of (a) part of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, among the land listed in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, which connected each point of the land listed in the attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff cannot seek removal since the instant container was a legitimate building for which the building report was completed.

On the other hand, the plaintiff sought removal of the container of this case as the claim for removal of interference based on the ownership of the land. Thus, the defendant who owned the container of this case and owned the container of this case is obligated to remove the container of this case at the request of the plaintiff, the land owner, unless there is a legitimate source of right to possess the land. As alleged by the defendant, even if the container of this case was constructed after the construction report of this case was completed, it cannot be deemed as a source of right to possess the land owned by the plaintiff. Whether the container of this case is a building constructed in accordance with the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the grounds of its reasoning. It is so decided as per Disposition.