1. The defendant shall remove the buildings listed in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 4, 2006, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to Cand 1999m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. As to the building located in the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”), D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) was issued a certificate of report on the construction of a temporary building by the Kimhae market on August 20, 2014 as the owner of the building.

(Period of existence, February 28, 2015). (c)

Around November 2014, the Defendant purchased the instant building from D, and thereafter made the E-Regional Housing Association (hereinafter “E-NF”) use the said building.

On December 23, 2015, the non-party union entered into a contract for leasing the instant land from the Plaintiff, but the said lease contract was terminated thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since removal of a building constitutes a factual act that constitutes a final disposition of the ownership, in principle, the owner is entitled to dispose of the removal, but the person who is in possession of an unregistered building transferred from the original acquisitor of the ownership, even though he/she failed to file for registration of acquisition of ownership, is in a position to dispose of the building in possession legally or factually within the scope of the right, and thus, the landowner who is illegally occupied due to the existence of the building can seek the removal against the occupant of the building.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3073 delivered on February 14, 1989). B.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant is in a position to dispose of the instant building legally or in fact, and thus, the Plaintiff, seeking the removal of disturbance as the owner of the instant land, is obligated to remove the instant building on the ground.

3. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is reasonable.