1. Defendant B, C, and D indicated in the attached Form No. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 5, 22, 23, 9, 10, 10,00 square meters in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fropo-gu 529.7 square meters.

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F large 529.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The G-Land Building (hereinafter “instant building”) adjacent to the instant land is in contravention of the boundary of the instant land, and occupies part 38.6 square meters (hereinafter “the instant part”) indicated in the attached drawings among the instant land.

The instant building was owned by Defendant B, and was transferred to H on February 21, 2019 through Defendant E.

In the case of the lawsuit for the removal of building, etc. filed by the Plaintiff (2018dada5227875), the Seoul Central District Court sentenced H to the Plaintiff that the part of the instant intrusion (hereinafter “the instant bedroom”) should remove the building and deliver the part of the instant bedroom to the Plaintiff.

Defendant B uses part of the instant sunken building as a residence, and Defendant C and D have partially leased and operated the instant sunken building from Defendant E.

Defendant E transferred the ownership of the instant building to H on the ground of trust, and according to the real estate security trust agreement, Defendant E still maintains the rights and obligations of a lessor.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as above, Defendant B, C, and D, the possessor of the instant sunken building, who possesses the instant sunken part without any justifiable right to use the said part, has the duty to withdraw from the instant sunken building.

The above defendants asserted that they have the right to possess the part of the instant crime committed by the former owner by leasing the part of the instant crime from the former owner, but they cannot be recognized as the entry in Eul 3.

Although the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant E actually occupies the instant sunken building, Defendant E is merely an indirect possession of the instant sunken building as a lessor, and thus, it cannot be said that Defendant E can not seek an eviction on the ground of an illegal possession.

3. Conclusion.