1. The Defendant is among 1,785 square meters per Gyeonggi-gun C, Gyeonggi-do, and the Plaintiff:

(a) an indication of the Appendix No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1-1.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 1,785 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) prior to Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-gun C.

B. On the ground of the land owned by the Plaintiff, there is a building listed in Section 1(a) of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. The Defendant owns the instant building, and occupies the land indicated in Section 1-B of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, and the result of this court’s request for measurement and appraisal of the natural branch of the same Supreme Court as the Korea Land Information Corporation, based on the above facts, the judgment as to the ground for the entire purport of the argument, barring any special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case existing on the ground of the land owned by the plaintiff and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

A. As to this, the defendant does not own the building of this case, and the defendant does not participate in the use of the building of this case.

In doing so, the plaintiff asserts that the above building was constructed without a legitimate title that cannot be asserted against the plaintiff.

B. As long as the building of this case exists on the land owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff may seek removal of the building of this case against the Defendant as a removal of interference based on the ownership of the above land.

In addition, if there are special circumstances that the defendant has the right to possess the land owned by the plaintiff for the ownership of the building of this case, the defendant bears the burden of proving and proving such circumstances.

C. Under the different premise, the defendant's argument is without merit.

The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.