1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C, on September 9, 2009, owned a 185 square meters (hereinafter “land prior to subdivision”) prior to Kimpo-si, obtained a building permit for the building indicated in paragraph (3) of the attached Table on the land prior to subdivision (hereinafter “instant building”). On October 20, 209, C commenced the instant building.

B. On January 20, 2010, the Defendant, the birth of C, donated the land before subdivision from C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 27, 2010, and on February 26, 2010, on the land before subdivision, Kimpo Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter “Seoul National Agricultural Cooperatives”) registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 49 million with respect to the land before subdivision. On March 29, 2010, the Defendant filed a report on the change of the title holder of the building permit of the instant building from C to the Defendant.

C. Around April 29, 2010, the land before subdivision was subdivided into each of the lands listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “land No. 1” and “No. 2”). D.

On May 31, 2010, the defendant completed the building of this case on the land of this case and obtained approval for use on the land of this case, and registered the preservation of ownership on June 23, 2010.

E. On March 5, 2014, at the request of Kimpo-han, the mortgagee-mortgage, Kimpo-chul. The decision to voluntarily commence the auction was rendered on March 5, 2014. The Plaintiff purchased the land Nos. 1 and 2 in the said voluntary auction procedure and paid the price on November 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff purchased the land Nos. 1 and 2 in a voluntary auction procedure and acquired ownership by paying the purchase price. The fact that the Defendant owned the building of this case on the land No. 1 is recognized as above. Since the Defendant does not dispute the possession of the land No. 1 and 2, the Defendant did not have the right to occupy and use the land No. 1 and 2, so long as the Defendant did not have the right to occupy