1. The Defendant removed, respectively, the five rooms listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 on the land of 3,106 square meters in Echeon-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by winning a successful bid of the 3,106 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant, on the ground of the instant land, installed five greenhouses as shown in the attached Table 2, and planted and cultivated perennial trees and seedlings within the above greenhouses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, video of Gap evidence 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove five greenhouses and seedlings on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and to deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, as it interferes with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership as to the instant land by installing five greenhouses on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff and occupying land in a manner that cultivates trees, etc. on the instant land. As such, the Defendant is obligated to remove five greenhouses and seedlings on the instant land to the Plaintiff and to transfer the instant land.

3. The Defendant’s argument regarding the instant land was originally owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant, with the consent of D to use the instant land, paid an investment cost of KRW 45 million by installing a vinyl house on the instant land with the use of the instant land and cultivating pine trees, etc., so that the Defendant could not comply with the claim for extradition of the instant land until receiving reimbursement from the Plaintiff for the said investment cost.

However, even if the Defendant consented to the use of the instant land from the former owner, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff, a new owner. Even if the Defendant invested KRW 45 million by installing a vinyl house, this cannot be deemed to have increased the value of the instant land. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion appears to have no reason to view it as one mother or is groundless.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.