1. The Defendants are in turn indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the land size of 691 square meters G in Gwangju-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of G Dae-si 691 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The deceased H (Death on February 27, 1989) is a person registered in the general building ledger as the owner on June 29, 1900 in accordance with the Building Register in accordance with the Building Register in 2005 as to (a) part of the wood table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, connected each point of (a) part of the attached drawing indicating 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 1, which is an unregistered building on the instant land; and (b) a person registered in the general building ledger as the owner on June 29, 1900.

The Defendants are the successors of the network H.

[Ground of recognition] Defendants B, C, and E: In the absence of dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, as to Defendant D, and F: Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3)(i.e., deemed as white) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are obligated to remove the building of this case to the plaintiff and deliver to the plaintiff the part of the site of the building of this case (A) and the part (A) of the attached Form No. 92.9m2.

[Plaintiff may seek delivery of the entire land of this case to the Defendants, but even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants occupied the building of this case and occupied the land of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants occupied the remaining part of the land of this case other than the part of the site of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking delivery of the remaining part of the land other than the part of the site of this case (A) and 92.9m2 is without merit).

In regard to this, Defendant B and C alleged that statutory superficies for the instant building was established, but it is not possible to recognize the legal superficies only with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.