1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) remove the buildings listed in Appendix 1; and

(b) the land listed in Appendix 2;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs' father D and the defendant's spouse E are siblings.

B. The land listed in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) originally acquired ownership by D on September 28, 1978, based on sale and purchase on December 31, 1972. As D died on January 6, 2002, the Plaintiffs inherited one-half shares and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 28, 2002.

C. Around May 190, E newly built a building listed in the annexed Table 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land, and acquired the ownership upon approval on December 17, 1990, but did not register the preservation of ownership. As E died on September 7, 1998, E did not register the preservation of ownership on September 7, 200, following the Defendant’s inheritance, and continued to reside in the instant building and use the said land.

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

2. Determination as to a request for removal of buildings and delivery of land

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case to the plaintiffs and deliver the land of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) asserts that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiffs' above claim by asserting as follows.

The acquisition by prescription was completed after the lapse of 20 years from May 1990 when the deceased E and the Defendant occupied the instant land.

The deceased E borrowed the instant land from the network D with respect to the construction of the instant building, and the lending relationship remains.

Contrary to the intention of the network D which lent the land of this case to the defendant and the network E, the plaintiffs sought removal of the building of this case and delivery of the land of this case against the defendant constitutes abuse of rights against the good faith principle.

(ii).