1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form 1 through 8, and 1 among the land size of 313-2,623 square meters in the document Mancheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. On June 11, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the Mamba-type 313-2 282,623 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The Defendant, among the instant real property, constructed a steel-frame and other structural container building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of 352 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) connected in order to each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1 through 8, and directly occupies the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 5, 6 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of all pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim, since the defendant occupies the land of this case as the owner of the building of this case, it is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the removal of disturbance based on ownership as the owner of this case

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for the Saemangeum Power Plant, the Reclamation Coal Resources, Saemangeum Transport Services (hereinafter “instant services”) and stored obstacles in the instant land necessary to perform the instant services. As long as the instant land is related to the instant services and is still effective without termination of the instant service contract, the Defendant asserts to the effect that he/she has the right to possess the instant land until the Plaintiff performed his/her duty to pay the payment, etc. in accordance with the instant service contract.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant still has a right to possess the land of this case, apart from whether the service contract of this case was terminated only with the descriptions of Eul 1 to 16 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.