1. The defendant shall leave from each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 (including the paper number) and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff owned a building of 1041 square meters in Chungcheongnam-nam budget-gun, and D owned each building on the ground of the above site, and the defendant concluded a loan agreement with D for use with respect to each of the above buildings, and can recognize the fact that he currently occupies the above building.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to leave the above building upon the plaintiff's request for exclusion of disturbance as the owner of the site.

2. The defendant's argument concerning the defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant lent each of the above buildings from D without compensation, the plaintiff's claim for the eviction against the defendant is unfair.

The defendant, by concluding a loan contract with D for use, occupies each of the above buildings.

Even if there are no special circumstances, this is merely a claim relationship between the defendant and D, and it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff, who is the owner of the above site. Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

Furthermore, according to the above evidence, in a lawsuit seeking removal of interference based on ownership against D, for which the Plaintiff claimed removal of each of the above buildings as a claim against D for removal of interference based on ownership, the Plaintiff asserted the completion of the ownership or the prescriptive acquisition of superficies on the above site, and sought a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for the registration of transfer of ownership or the registration of creation of superficies on the above site. However, the Plaintiff’s claim was rejected in entirety, and the judgment ordering D to remove each of the above buildings becomes final and conclusive.

[Attachment District Court Decision 2015Da12246, 2016Gadan3409 (Counterclaim) decided June 14, 2016]. 3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.