The defendant shall attach Form 537m2 to the plaintiff among the 537m2 in Gyeyang-si

2. Connections each point of which is indicated 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

Facts of recognition

E has completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of Yangsan-si on January 17, 1991 (hereinafter “one parcel of land”), and completed the registration of ownership preservation with respect to the above above building on February 13, 1996 (hereinafter “one building”).

On January 17, 1991, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D large-248 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “second-party land”) in Yangsan-si, and completed the registration of ownership preservation with respect to the above above ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “second-party buildings”) on December 1, 2015.

On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on land and building on September 1, 2016.

The defendant from among the land in attached Form 1

3. Some buildings were built on the ground indicated in the drawing “A” (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building on the ground was removed around September 2017 while the instant lawsuit was pending, but the attachment was attached thereto.

2. Of the drawings, the remaining parts of the building columns (H beam) remain on the ground of 1, 4, and 6. Of the drawings, the sewage tools inspection boxes connected to 1 are installed in the area of 2, 3, 5, and 7.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap 1, 2, and 4 (including a branch number)'s written records and images, survey appraisal and supplementary appraisal result, according to the above-mentioned facts finding the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to remove each building columns (H beamline) on the ground of the land of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner and deliver each corresponding part of the land to the plaintiff.

However, according to the above, sewage installed on the instant land appears to be necessary for the Plaintiff’s building, and therefore, it is presumed to have been installed by the previous owner’s consent or consent of the land No. 1 and building. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is difficult to accept.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.