1. The defendant. A. The defendant is the plaintiff.

Of the 3,300 square meters of land for factory in Kimpo-si, the annexed drawings (1), (2), (3), (4), and (1) shall be in sequence.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant’s order No. 1-A on April 7, 2015

C, which was the owner of the land indicated in the subsection (hereinafter “instant land”), and the instant land and disposition No. 1-A.

After concluding a lease agreement with respect to the building indicated in the port (hereinafter “instant building”) as follows, the instant building and the instant land, other than the instant building site, are occupied and used until now.

The terms and conditions of the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million, and one-year special terms and conditions of the lease term of KRW 10 million: It is mutually confirmed that this contract is currently in progress in real estate auction with the Incheon District Court D.

When the statutory superficies is not established (at the time of auction), it is a condition to clarify the building without delay, and thus, it cannot be claimed against the lessor for civil or criminal damages.

B. On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land through a compulsory auction.

C. As a result of the commission of appraisal of rent for the instant land, the sum of the amount equivalent to rent from July 4, 2015 to June 14, 2017 is KRW 79,485,00, and the amount equivalent to monthly rent from June 15, 2017 is KRW 3,575,000.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 16, the result of a request for appraisal by an appraiser of this court, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. As to the claim for extradition and eviction, the fact that the defendant occupies and uses the remaining part of the land of this case except the part on the site of the building of this case as to the claim for extradition and eviction, as seen earlier, the defendant is obliged to leave possession as to this part of the land of this case and deliver it to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that he is the lessee who was the owner of the land of this case and has the right to continue to occupy and use the land of this case, but the fact that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case through a compulsory auction is as seen earlier.