1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Disposition 1-b of the first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The D site was owned by the father of the Plaintiff A, and the F died on July 9, 1960 and his heir, including the Plaintiff A, succeeded to the ownership of the said site.

B. The plaintiff B is the owner of the land E.

C. A building unregistered on the D’s land and E’s two lots (hereinafter “instant building”). Among them, the attached Table 1 appraisal is located in the area of 89 square meters in the ship, which connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 5, 6, 7, 6, 7, 89 square meters in sequence on D’s land, and attached Table 2 appraisal is located in the area of 20, 21, 22, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 14, 20 each point of 66 square meters in sequence on E’s land and 27, 28, 29, 30, 27.

After acquiring a building on the E’s land around 1992, the Defendant continued to manage and use the building by extending or remodelling the building and completing the construction in the form of the building in this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the 2014Na43011, Gap evidence No. 1 of the 2014Na43028, the result of each survey appraisal by appraiser G and H, the fact inquiry results and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the branch office of the Korea Intellectual Property & Construction Work Gyeonggi-do Headquarters of the Korea Intellectual Property & Construction Work and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense against the main defense is that D's land is owned by Kim Gim, and the plaintiff A is not the owner of the above site, and the plaintiff A's lawsuit of this case seeking removal of building against the defendant is an illegal lawsuit filed by the plaintiff A without standing to sue. However, in a lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff's standing to sue is not justified.

3. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, who is the de facto disposal authority of the building of this case, is the co-owner of the building of this case, barring special circumstances.