1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Defendants asserted to the effect that, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking removal of the instant building and delivery of the disputed land before the filing of the lawsuit, but the judgment against which the Plaintiff was lost (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da87617, Busan District Court Decision 2014Na45147, supra), the instant lawsuit also seeks removal of the instant building and delivery of the land in dispute, and is identical to the previous lawsuit which was rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff, and thus, it is unlawful on the grounds that there is no benefit of protection of rights. However, the Defendants’ assertion to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful solely on the ground that there is no benefit of protection of rights, and thus, cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant land is owned by himself (the Plaintiff is a sectional owner of a reinforced concrete structure on the instant land and a part of a multi-family housing building on the five-story residential facilities and multi-family housing building on the instant land). Defendant Jung-gu Busan Metropolitan Government without permission constructed the instant building on the land in dispute, and Defendant B occupied and used the instant building as the president before the Do Youth Association, and thus, Defendant B occupied and used the instant building without permission. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that it seeks removal of the instant building and delivery of the disputing land against the Defendants.

The records or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including the number of branch numbers) are insufficient to recognize that the building of this case was constructed on the land in dispute, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments in the records or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 1, and 2, the building of this case is not the land in dispute, but the building of this case is constructed on the land of Jung-gu, Busan and F, which is adjacent to the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on other premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion.