1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) with respect to each of the shares of 1/2, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is equal to 536 square meters and E with respect to each of the shares of the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. Determination 1 as to the cause of the principal claim 1) In fact, the fact that recognition is made is as follows: D. D. 536 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter “1 land”).

(B) 8,022 square meters prior to E (hereinafter referred to as “second-class land”).

On December 4, 2006, each of the shares of 1/3 of them was completed in the Plaintiff’s name on November 10, 2006, each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale and purchase on November 10, 2006. Of the land 1 and 2, the part connecting each point of A, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, and 50 square meters in order to connect each point of Annex A, 36, 34, 32, 32, 31, 30, and 50 square meters in each column of Annex A, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 29, and 29, each of the above housing units are collectively owned by each of the above housing units (hereinafter “instant housing”).

The Defendants are building. The Defendants own 1/2 shares of each of the instant housing. [Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Defendants are obligated to remove each of the instant housing within the limits of their respective shares, as an indivisible obligation, in light of the aforementioned facts of recognition, as stated in Gap 1, 4, 6, and Eul 5-12, as well as the purport of the entire pleadings. The Defendants are deemed to possess the whole land of the instant housing and part of the land of the first and second. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to remove each of the instant housing within the limits of their respective shares as an indivisible obligation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 80Da756 delivered on June 24, 1980). As an act of preserving jointly owned property, the Plaintiff seeking removal and delivery of the pertinent house is obligated to remove the instant house and deliver the first land sought by the Plaintiff out of the said housing site.

B. The Defendants asserted that the prior owner of the land before the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion was approved to use the land by the Defendants. The Defendants did not raise any specific defense as to the portion on which the instant housing was located among the land No. 2.

the preceding owner of such electric power.