1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff by jointly setting forth the table Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 13, of the attached Form No. 6, 7, 8,

1. The Defendants, as to the facts of recognition, possess each door and fence connected to each of the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 in sequence among the items listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff, in the part (B) which successively connects each point of 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 72.7 square meters of an unauthorized building; and 1.8 square meters of an unauthorized building to the part (C) which successively connects each point of 18, 19, 200, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 114, 14, 100 square meters of the land indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 9, 10 evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 (including additional numbers) or video, the appraisal result by the appraiser, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants jointly have the duty to remove each of the above buildings, entrances and fences and deliver the above part of the land to the plaintiff.

The Defendants asserted to the effect that, around 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the exchange of the land owned by the Plaintiff, including the land in the above part (A) and the area (hereinafter “D”) and agreed at the above committee to bear the cost of removing the building without permission, and thus, they should receive compensation from the said committee. However, the aforementioned assertion cannot be a ground for setting up against the Plaintiff’s removal and request for extradition, which is the landowner. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted in entirety.