1. The defendant shall give order to the plaintiff each point of indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the land listed in the annexed list.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff won each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) and acquired ownership by fully paying the successful bid price on September 16, 2015.

B. On the ground of each of the instant lands, there are (a) parts of the land in the ship connected with each of the items indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, among the land listed in the attached sheet owned by the Defendant, which are (b) of the land of the instant case, which are located in the unit of the water tank concrete slab roof 97.52 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”) and (b) parts of the building connected in sequence No. 5,6, 7, 8, and 5 with the land indicated in the attached sheet No. 5,6, 8, and 59.04 square meters (hereinafter “the instant warehouse”).

C. Each of the instant lands was owned C around July 24, 1997, and the ownership transfer registration was made to D on October 29, 2013, and the Plaintiff acquired the ownership on September 16, 2015. Meanwhile, the instant housing and warehouse became subject to registration of ownership preservation in the name of C on September 23, 2011, respectively, and on the same day, the ownership transfer registration was made to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove each of the houses and warehouses of this case to the plaintiff and deliver each of the lands of this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant claimed that the house and warehouse of this case were completed before June 22, 2007, and at that time all the land of this case and the house and warehouse of this case were owned by C. As seen earlier, the owner of the land and the building on its ground were changed by the sale, and that the defendant acquired legal superficies under the customary law.

It is insufficient to recognize that the instant house and warehouse were completed before June 22, 2007 only with the descriptions of No. 6, B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On the other hand, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 3, each of the lands of this case.