1. The Defendants:

(a) remove the buildings listed in Annex 2;

(b) Appendix 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 3, 2008, with respect to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by Nonparty D, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage was completed on December 3, 2008, as well as on the land owned by Nonparty D (hereinafter “instant land”). The registration of the establishment of a mortgage was completed at the time of military agricultural cooperatives around the above time, and

B. More points that Co., Ltd. started on February 26, 2009 (hereinafter “instant building”) and obtained approval for use on June 2, 2011.

On the other hand, the registration of preservation of ownership of the building of this case was completed on June 25, 2010 upon the request for provisional disposition registration.

C. On June 14, 2011, the instant land commenced a voluntary auction procedure via Daegu District Court Racing-Support E. On February 14, 201, the Plaintiffs, at the said auction procedure on February 14, 2012, was awarded one-half shares of each of the instant land.

On December 14, 2011, in relation to the instant building, the procedure for compulsory auction was initiated as Daegu District Court racing supportF on December 14, 201, and the Defendants, at the above auction procedure on May 30, 2013, sold each 1/2 shares of the instant building and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building on June 5, 2013.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1-1 to 7, and evidence 2-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendants owned the building of this case constructed on the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs, and the defendants are obligated to remove the building of this case to the plaintiffs and deliver the land of this case, except in extenuating circumstances.

In addition, the defendants gain profit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the land of this case for the purpose of owning the building of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs suffered loss equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the defendants pay rent to the plaintiffs.