1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B indicated in the attached Form No. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 19, among forest land D 12,92 square meters in Yangju-si of Gyeonggi-do.

1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. Indication of Claim: Defendant C occupies each of the provisional buildings indicated on the order of the land owned by the Plaintiff, thereby seeking eviction.

Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. Forest land entered in the text of recognition is owned by the Plaintiff, and unregistered building such as the written order is constructed on the above forest ground, and Defendant B leased the above building to Defendant C.

On the other hand, an unauthorized Building Management Book is not prepared with respect to the above building, and both cities find that the above building was owned by Nonparty E and impose the property tax on the building from 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and fact-finding results on the two main markets, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The judgment of removal of a building is a factual act that constitutes a final disposition of the ownership. Thus, in principle, the owner is entitled to remove the building, but the person who is in possession of the unregistered building transferred from the original acquisitor of the ownership, even though he/she failed to make the registration of acquisition of ownership, is in a position to dispose of the building in possession legally or factually within the scope of the right, and thus, the owner of the land who is illegally occupied due to the existence of the building can seek the removal from the above possessor of the building.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3073 delivered on February 14, 1989). In this case, Defendant B imposed the property tax on the building unregistered in both viewing and viewing as above, and Defendant B argued that it did not construct the building.

On the other hand, Defendant B leased a building to Co-Defendant C, while she is not the owner of the building, the right to lease the building to another person.