1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) Of the lands listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list, each point is indicated in the attached Form 3, 4, 9, 10, 3.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 17, 2005, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each 1/2 portion of the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On January 11, 1995, the Defendant completed registration of initial ownership relating to the buildings listed in Paragraph 2 of the Attached List (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. Since the construction of the instant building, it exists on the ground of 10 square meters in part (B) and 10 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “the instant flooded land”) connected each point of the attached drawing marks 3, 4, 9, 10, and 3 among the instant land from the date of construction to the present date.

The rent of the land in question is as follows.

On May 17, 2005 to May 16, 2006, KRW 30,800 from May 17, 2006 to KRW 396,700 from May 17, 2006 to KRW 446,600 from May 16, 2007 to KRW 146,60 from May 17, 2007 to KRW 167,200 from May 16, 2008; KRW 506,40 from May 16, 2008; KRW 506,400 from May 17, 2008 to KRW 16,50 from May 16, 2008 to KRW 16,50 from May 16, 2009; KRW 501 to 18,50 from May 16, 2009 to KRW 14,510

2. According to the facts of the above recognition regarding removal and extradition request, the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, is obligated to remove the part on the ground of the instant sunken land among the instant building, which is the land owner, and deliver the instant sunken land to the Plaintiffs.

As to this, the defendant argued that the removal of this case and the request for extradition were abuse of rights since there was no intention or negligence of the defendant when the building violated the land of this case, but it is difficult to regard the plaintiff's claim as abuse of rights solely on the defendant'

In this case.