1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 10, 2009, Defendant B purchased 1051m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in the public sale process and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 27, 2009.

On the ground of the instant land, there were buildings registered under the name of Ecridge (hereinafter “instant church”) and F buildings, which are buildings with no permission, such as the 57.84 square meters in the lux roof and the luxal roof, the luxal lux and the 27 square meters in the luxal lux and the luxal lux.

B. On November 2009, Defendant B filed a lawsuit against the instant church seeking removal of the building and delivery of the land.

On July 22, 2011, the court sentenced the Plaintiff (B) to the effect that “The instant church shall remove the entire structures of the instant land, 57.84 square meters, 27 square meters, and 27 square meters, and the entire structures of the instant land on the ground,” which became final and conclusive around that time.

(C) Changwon District Court 2009Kadan53935 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”).

Defendant B filed an application for alternative enforcement based on the original copy of the instant judgment, and on October 18, 201, the court rendered a decision to authorize enforcement officers delegated by Defendant B to remove the said single-story housing, the single-story housing, and all structures on the ground of the instant land.

Changwon District Court 201Ma1386) d.

However, until the beginning of April 2012, the execution by the Do enforcement officer was not carried out, and the defendant B requested to develop a clean environmental development company, and removed the F building with the above single-story house and the single-story house on April 23, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The F Building, the gist of the Plaintiff’s argument, is not the ownership of the instant church, but the ownership of the Plaintiff’s individual.

However, Defendant B deceiving the court as if the actual representative of the church of this case was Defendant C.