1. The defendants shall leave the building listed in the attached list.

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

3.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 27, 2007, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid of 172m2m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in the procedure of a compulsory auction by the Chuncheon District Court E Real Estate, which was owned by Defendant C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 5, 2007.

B. G, the mother of Defendant C, is the owner of the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). The part of the instant building was constructed on the ground of 79 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the attached sheet Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 17 among the instant land, and H leased and occupied the instant building on that second floor.

C. On June 13, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against G and H, the owner of the instant building, and its occupant, seeking the removal of the instant building and the transfer of the instant land (hereinafter “instant removal lawsuit”). The judgment was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff on June 13, 2008, and the said judgment became final and conclusive by the judgment of the lower court on July 14, 2009.

At present, the defendants' husband and wife occupy the building of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Even in cases where the owner of land is able to demand the owner of the building to remove the building and deliver its site on the ground that the building to determine the cause of the claim is not equipped with the right to use the land for its existence, if a person other than the owner of the building occupies the building, the owner of land shall not undertake the removal of the building unless the building is removed.

Therefore, the land ownership is deemed to be hindered in the smooth realization of the land by the above possession. Therefore, the land owner may request the possessor of the building to withdraw from the building as an exclusion of interference based on his own ownership.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43801 Decided August 19, 2010). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is the instant case.