1. The Defendant is a building on which the part 146 square meters in the drawings in attached Table 3 on the ground attached to the attached Table No. 146 square meters in Ansan-si, Andong-si.

In full view of the statements and the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in subparagraphs 1-1 and 2, the Plaintiffs are co-owners of E forest and field No. 23 square meters in Ansan-dong-si, and the Plaintiff A is the owner of the D preceding D 146 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the Dong and lot number) in Ansan-dong-si. In addition, the part of the housing and toilets owned by the Defendant on the attached Table 1, which part of the attached Table 3 drawings 1, 3 square meters of the attached land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant part 1”), 3 square meters of the attached Form 3, and 3 square meters of the attached land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant part”), and there is no dispute between the parties, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the owner of each building, is obligated to remove the instant part of the ground building and deliver each of the instant part 1 to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the owner of the E-owner, and to deliver each of the land to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant has the right to possess the building since he obtained the consent for use from F, the pre-owner of this case 1 and 2, and even if not, the defendant's partial demolition of each of the above buildings and the construction of each of the above lands by the plaintiffs, the defendant is prohibited from entering the house. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is an abuse of rights.

The statements in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 are insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant has the right to possess the part 1 and 2 of this case and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it can be set up against the plaintiffs. The video of No. 1-1 through 10 of the evidence No. 1-2 and the circumstance that the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' claim of this case did not gain any benefit to the plaintiffs, and only suffered any pain and damage to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and therefore, the defendant's assertion of this part is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and all of them are accepted.