1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “Seo-gu E” shall be omitted from among the land indications (hereinafter referred to as “land indications”).

In the case of other land, since all of the other land is located in the same Dong, part of the land is divided into F large 54mm2 on December 24, 1986, and the land cadastre was closed on May 14, 1991.

On September 4, 1987, G 4003 square meters of land divided into F 54 square meters of land was combined with G 4003 square meters of land.

The land remaining after being divided into the above D-D land is part of the land for the improvement redevelopment project for housing in H-area, I, 924 square meters, and the registration of the land of I, 924 square meters on May 30, 1991 was completed on May 30, 1991.

The J apartment complex has been constructed on the land of the above I large 9624 m23m2 as an opening development project for the improvement of H zone.

Since May 31, 2017, G 4003 square meters land (the land indicated in the attached list) is owned by the defendant.

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against B, etc. by the Seoul Central District Court 2016 Gohap 566219, 2018 Gohap 587326 (Joint) and filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of the building and the delivery of the land on the ground indicated in the attached Table 587326 (Joint), and was sentenced by the above court on June 4, 2020 to the effect that “B, etc. remove the building of this case to the Defendant, and deliver the land of this case” was subject to a provisional execution declaration (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

As to the above judgment, B, etc. is appealed and pending in the appellate trial.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted the purport of the whole argument by the plaintiff, since the building of this case and the land of this case are the same as the building and land inherited to the plaintiff, and execution based on the judgment of this case should be rejected, since the plaintiff's building of this case and the land of this case are owned by the plaintiff's attached K are the same as the building and land inherited to the plaintiff.

The lawsuit of this case is lawful.