1. The Defendant marks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the landmarks of 747 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun,

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s 747 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) In the public sale procedure with regard to the instant land, the sales price was fully paid on November 13, 2017, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on the 27th day of the same month. (2) The Defendant occupied the instant land while building the instant land while living together with the instant land by constructing a new prefabricated type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 of the indication of the measuring room of the current status of the instant land among the instant land in order to each point of the attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap's entries, Gap's 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11 (including additional numbers)

B. The Defendant, who is in a position to dispose of the instant building legally or in fact, has occupied the instant land owned by the Plaintiff while residing in the said building. As such, the Defendant is obligated to remove the said building and deliver the site part.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s defense dispute, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since it paid property tax to Pyeongtaek-gun as well as the expenses incurred in planting trees and repairing the building around the instant building.

However, the above circumstance alone cannot be viewed as the source of right to possess the land of this case against the Plaintiff. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.