1. The defendant has each point of the attached Form No. 19, 20, 21, 26, 19 among the 3,146§³ of Busan Seo-gu B forest land in Busan.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is in charge of the trust affairs concerning the sale in lots, etc. after acquiring the ownership of land from a new building company, the landowner, for the construction of new apartment units in Busan Seo-gu C, B, and D ground E-Ground. 2) The Defendant is in charge of the trust affairs concerning B forest land and 3,146 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of the land indicated in paragraph (1).

3) The owner of each building indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 20, 21, 26, and 19, which is part of the building indicated in the separate sheet No. 19, 20, 26, and 19, connected to the F land adjacent to the above land and the building on the above land, is the owner of each building indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 20, 26, and 19, which is part of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (B).

(C) The portion of “C” connected with each point of 26, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 of the same drawings is one-story housing of 18 square meters on the ground block structure, string roof, and one-story housing (hereinafter “instant two buildings”).

A. The boundary of the land in this case is constructed in an influenced state.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, the land owner of the instant land, has the duty to remove the instant 1 and 2 buildings constructed on the instant land site and deliver each part of the land to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts that the size of the land in this case, which the building Nos. 1 and 2 covered by the building Nos. 1 and 2, is less than 1% of the total size of the land in this case, and ② the part of the land in this case, for which the plaintiff seeks to deliver, does not affect the plaintiff's construction and completion of the apartment construction, and ③ there is no particular benefit even if the land is delivered to the plaintiff, and the defendant has no choice but to remove the whole building, thereby causing enormous damages. Thus, the plaintiff's request for removal of the building in this case 1 and 2 and the request for delivery

B. Domination and exercise of rights are subjectively erroneous to the other party.