The Defendants jointly share KRW 3,00,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 31, 2020 to January 12, 2021.

Facts of recognition

A. A warehouse (hereinafter “the warehouse of this case”) constructed on the part inside the ship connecting each point of the table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the annexed drawing Nos. D, G was used for the previous part. In around 2003, E was a dead body collecting facility in the instant warehouse.

E A. When he/she died on March 2010, he/she was residing in the same village.

around March 201, F purchased all the warehouse of this case and its facilities, etc. from E’s son G around KRW 20,000,000, from around 200. After occupying the warehouse of this case, the Plaintiff recovered the decline by occupying the warehouse of this case. On May 2012, the Plaintiff occupied the warehouse of this case and then collected the decline from the warehouse of this case.

B. On December 2, 2016, Defendant B received and used a loan of 27.5 square meters among 55 square meters of block structure 1st floor housing units connected to the instant warehouse from the Gung-gun (hereinafter “instant housing”).

Defendant C is the father of Defendant B.

(c)

Defendant B is the real estate corresponding to the instant house and reverted to the Development Group. Defendant B was leased the instant house from the Development Group. As such, Defendant B was entitled to legally occupy the instant warehouse as the object of the instant loan agreement.

In light of the above, Defendant B, on January 21, 2020, rejected the claim against the Plaintiff to exclude the obstruction of possession on the ground that Defendant B did not possess the warehouse of this case. Defendant B, on the assumption of the premise that Defendant B’s claim to exclude the obstruction of possession on the basis of the right to lease would not be deemed to affect the warehouse of this case (hereinafter “prior judgment”), and the judgment dismissing Defendant B’s claim on the ground that Defendant B’s lease cannot be deemed to affect the warehouse of this case (hereinafter “prior judgment”).