The defendant connects the plaintiff with each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, and 1 among the 254m2 in Bocheon-si City forest land.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of C forest land 254 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Bocheon-si, and the Defendant is the owner of D large 304 square meters adjacent to the said forest land and a single-story house without permission for the roof of the wood straw, cement block roof studs.

B. The above housing owned by the Defendant accounts for the part 14 square meters inboard that connects each point of the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1 among the land of this case, and the above warehouse accounts for one square meter in sequence with each point of Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 4 of the same drawing.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove the warehouse on the ground of part 1 square meter in part 2, 3, and 1, and deliver the land to the Plaintiff in sequence, which connects each point of item (a) above 14 square meters in the ship, and each point of item (a) above 4, 5, 6, and 4 of the same drawings, which are linked in sequence to the Plaintiff.

3. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant was the owner of the instant land around March 21, 2013.

The E clan’s agent F determined the annual rent of KRW 195,00, and the period of use to the time of the destruction of the above ground building, and claimed to the effect that there is a legitimate title to occupy the above land.

The above F has the authority to act for a clan only with each description of the evidence of Nos. 1 to 5.

Even if it is difficult to recognize that the above F has a right to represent the above clan, it cannot be recognized that the above claim contract between the above F and the defendant is a legitimate title to occupy the above land in relation to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this is not accepted.

In addition, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's claim of this case constitutes abuse of right, but the plaintiff himself.