1. The Defendant: (a) out of the 3,970 square meters of C orchard at the time of racing for the Plaintiff;

A. Each point is indicated in the Appendix 36, 37, 38, 39, 36.

1. Basic facts

A. In racing-si, C orchard 3,970 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned a network D (hereinafter “the network”). The Deceased died on November 25, 2014.

B. The deceased’s heir is F, a plaintiff, E, and wife, who is an son.

C. The Defendant, among the instant land, installs a container on the ground of 13 square meters in the part of “A” (hereinafter “instant container”) which connects each point of 36,37,38,39,36, among the attached drawings, among the land in this case, and described 20 square meters in the part of “A” connected each point of 2,3,4,35, and 20 square meters in sequence with each point of 2,4,35, and 20 square meters in the part of “A” in the attached drawings (hereinafter “the water in this case”). The Defendant, which connects each point of 40,41,42,43, and 40 square meters in sequence with the attached drawings, installs a structure on the land of 251 square meters in the part of “B”, which connects each point of 40,41,42, and cultivates the column within that scope.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff is one of the co-owners who inherit the land of this case from the deceased, and the defendant who occupies part of the land of this case as a preservation act for the jointly owned property, may seek the exclusion of disturbance of the above land and the transfer of the land.

As such, the defendant is obligated to remove the container of this case and plastic houses, collect the lost numbers of this case, and deliver the land to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant defenses that he concluded a lease contract on the land of this case verbally between the defendant and the deceased, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the records of Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) have concluded a lease contract between the defendant and the deceased, and there is no evidence to support that the defendant paid rent for the use of the land of this case to the deceased or the deceased's heir.