1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 738 square meters in Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”) on December 24, 2003, the Plaintiff owned the said land until now.

B. At the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership of the instant land, among the instant land and the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, a building with a size of 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 indicated in the annexed drawings No. 1, 2, 6, 6, 7, 8, and 70m2 (hereinafter “instant building”).

The instant building is an unregistered building, the preservation of ownership of which has not been registered.

C. Around June 2012, F: (a) purchased and occupied the instant building; (b) sold the instant building to G around April 2013; and (c) transferred its possession to G.

G around May 2013, around June 2013, the Defendant sold each of the instant buildings to H (hereinafter “the instant building sales contract between the Defendant and H”) and H thereafter since June 2013.

【In the absence of dispute, the ground for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul's evidence No. 1 (including the number of branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the commission of appraisal (including the result of the commission of appraisal supplementation) to the chief of the Korea Cadastral Corporation in the World Intellectual Property Organization in the Daejeon District Headquarters of Daejeon District of Daejeon, the result of fact-finding on the chief of the Daejeon District Headquarters in the Republic of Daejeon District of

2. Determination as to the request for removal of buildings

A. (1) In a case where the ownership of a building constructed on another’s land is infringed upon, the person obligated to remove the building is a person entitled to purchase it and dispose of it in a legal and de facto manner (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu257, Nov. 24, 1987). Since the Plaintiff’s assertion by the party to the contract was cancelled the instant sales contract between the Defendant and H, the Defendant was a de facto and de facto person of the instant building, which is the unregistered building.