1. The defendant shall also make an appraisal of the attached Form 140,158 square meters among the plaintiff (appointed parties) and the designated parties in Ansan-si, Ansan-si C forest land.

1. Facts that no dispute exists;

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties jointly own the land indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties jointly own the land indicated in the order.

B. The Defendant, among the instant land, owns a toilet on the 7 square meter of the part “1” portion of the attached sheet No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 5 on the land of this case, and owns a warehouse on the 67 square meters of the part “bbb” portion of the attached sheet No. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 13 in sequence, each of the items of the “c” portion of the attached sheet No. 13, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 13.

2. According to the facts established on the basis of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the above toilets, houses, and warehouses from the plaintiff (appointed parties) and the appointed parties and deliver each site to them.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion: 1) The Defendant: (a) paid the rent based on the right of lease and possessed each of the above lands while paying the rent; (b) the Defendant newly constructed a soil brick structure device and a 24.707mm2 on each of the above lands under the condition that 5 other than D and 5 were permitted to use and benefit from each of the above lands, and sold it to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant acquired legal superficies for the possession of the above land on each of the above land, constructed each of the above buildings around 2002, and paid rent, and occupied each of the above land while paying rent.

3) The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for purchase of each of the above buildings upon the extinguishment of the above lease rights and statutory superficies. (B) First, the judgment 1) was examined as to whether the Defendant acquired the right to lease on each of the above lands, and (1) the Defendant merely asserted that he paid the rent as a lessee merely, and specifically, what is the case.