The defendant shall remove the building indicated in attached Table 1 to the plaintiff, and the land indicated in attached Tables 2 and 3 to the plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 14, 1994 with respect to the land listed in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the attached Table Nos. 2 and/or 1/2 of the land listed in paragraph (3) (hereinafter “instant land”).

2) On the ground of this case, C newly constructed a building listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of this case, and completed the registration of initial ownership on October 20, 2009 with respect to the 99.78 square meters of the wall-to-belllled roof and the single-storyed roof.

3) On March 6, 2020, the Defendant was sold the instant building in the case of a compulsory auction by official auction by Gwangju District Court DD on March 6, 202. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, and the purport

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, who owned the building of this case and occupied the land of this case without a legitimate title, is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of this case.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion that the building of this case was newly constructed by Eul, who is the plaintiff's children, with legitimate permission and completed preservation registration, and that the plaintiff constructed a solid brick building for the plaintiff's children, but at the third party's request for compulsory auction, it is against the principle of trust and good faith to seek removal of the building of this case which has not been newly constructed by changing the purport as a result of a successful bid to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's argument to remove

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of the pleadings by evidence Nos. 1 and 4, i.e., the building of this case for which 10 years have passed since the registration of preservation of ownership was completed, and ii) the building of this case cannot be readily concluded that the purpose of the approval of use can be achieved for a considerable period of time as a building site for a building of a brick prefabricated panel and roof.