1. The Defendant points out each of the attached Form No. 22, 23, 26, 27, and 22, among the land size 24,931 square meters in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (U.S.) to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) On March 27, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased a 24931mm2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) from D on March 27, 2018, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 28, 2018 by the Suwon District Court’s receipt of the Suwon District Court’s receipt of the registration office, and acquired the ownership of the instant land.

(2) On January 2018, the Defendant installed each of the containers on the part (i) part (ii) and 27 square meters in the line (hereinafter “the part of the instant one”) in the line connected with each of the points in the attached Form No. 22, 23, 26, 27, and 22, among the instant land, and on the part (ii) and 27 square meters in the line connected with each of the points in the same drawing No. 23, 24, 25, 26, and 23 in sequence, among the instant land (hereinafter “the part of the instant two land”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

B. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, unless there is no legitimate source of right to possess the land of this case 1 and 2, the defendant is obligated to collect each container on the land of this case 1 and 2 and deliver each part of the land of this case 1 and 2 to the plaintiff.

I would like to say.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “The Plaintiff entered into a sales agency contract with E, which received a building permit for detached houses constructed on the instant land before acquiring the ownership of the instant land, and installed containers on the instant 1 and 2 land for the sales agency business pursuant to the sales agency contract, so it is impossible to respond to the Plaintiff’s request.”

However, there are the above circumstances asserted by the defendant

However, such circumstance alone cannot be said to have a possessory right over the instant 1 and 2 land portion in relation to the Plaintiff who acquired ownership of the instant land.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.