The Defendant, as the Plaintiff

(a) Of the lands listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list, each of the divists, e.g., e., f., g., d., and d.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2020, F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the annexed Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) on January 6, 2020, and on the same day, on the same day, the registration of transfer of ownership based on one’s own trust agreement was completed on January 6, 2020; and on November 29, 2019, the land listed in paragraph (2) of the annexed Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”); and on November 29, 2019, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed to the Plaintiff on the same day after the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the portion of 611/390 of the instant land (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

B. The Defendant occupied and used each of the buildings listed in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1, which are unregistered buildings on each of the instant land without permission (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”).

【Unfounded grounds for recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. According to the facts acknowledged in the above 1. Paragraph (1) of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant occupied and used each of the buildings of this case, thereby hindering the exercise of ownership of each of the buildings of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to withdraw from each of the buildings of this case to the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the exclusion of interference based on ownership of each of the

B. (1) The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion (1) asserted that the Defendant leased each of the instant buildings from G, and that the lessor status of each of the instant buildings was succeeded in sequential order as to each of the instant buildings, and that there was a legitimate right to possess each of the instant buildings under the Protection of Commercial Building Lease Act, since the Plaintiff succeeded to the former lessor status of each of the instant buildings or otherwise was entitled to possess each of the instant buildings.

evidence that may be considered.