1. The defendant shall leave from each building listed in the attached Tables 2 and 3 to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. The fact of recognition is that the Defendant occupies each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet 2 and 3 (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”) owned by Nonparty 1, the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant occupied each of the buildings of this case without title, thereby hindering the plaintiff's ownership of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to withdraw from each of the buildings of this case.

The plaintiff also sought delivery of the land of this case and each building of this case to the defendant, but according to the evidence No. 3 of this case, the owner of each building of this case is recognized as having been stated C in the building ledger, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff is the owner of each building of this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek delivery of each building of this case to the defendant.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant is the owner of each building of this case, so the defendant merely occupies each building of this case and cannot be deemed to possess the land of this case (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935 Decided November 13, 2003), and the plaintiff cannot seek the delivery and eviction of the land of this case to the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's remaining claims are not accepted.

3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is alleged to have been permitted by C to permanently reside in each building of this case. However, even if there was a domestic agreement with C, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff under the above agreement, and the above argument does not constitute a ground for refusing the plaintiff's claim for removal of disturbance based on the ownership of the land owner of this case. Thus, the defendant's argument is rejected.

4. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.