1. The Plaintiff: D Large 215 square meters in Sacheon-si;

A. Defendant C shall carry out each point of 10, 9, 4, and 10 of the separate sheet of appraisal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 12, 1995, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building site, which completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 18663 on September 13, 1995, by purchasing D Large 215 square meters (hereinafter “instant building site”).

B. Defendant C installs cement block boundary stone on the ground of the part (A) part (hereinafter “the part (a) of this case”) connected in order to each point of 10,9,4, and 10 of the attached Table Nos. 10, among the instant land, and occupied the part (a) of this case while cultivating crops.

C. Defendant B owned (b) part (b) of the attached Table No. 5, 6, 1, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 5 on the ground (hereinafter “part (b) of the attached Table No. 5, 6, 1, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 5 on the instant land, which was constructed on the ground (hereinafter “the instant site”) and owned a cement block and a knife board board board set one story, a storage, and a cement block string roof, a single unit of the cement block, a single unit of a storage, and a single unit of stock and a girical tree, each of which was planted.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged before the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Defendant C is obligated to remove the above boundary stone set up on the site of this case to the Plaintiff, collect crops, and deliver the above part of the land to the Plaintiff.

In addition, Defendant B is obligated to remove each of the above warehouses constructed on the land of this case on the land of this case, collect the above trees, and deliver the land of this part to the Plaintiff.

3. The defendants' assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted that, at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant land, the respective sites of the instant items (a) and (b) were not included in the subject of purchase, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 1-3, the plaintiff purchased the entire site of this case.