1. The Defendants shall indicate, among the rooftops of the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list, drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 6.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 29, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list, and succeeded to the lessor’s status under a lease agreement with Defendant B with regard to 107.95 square meters of neighborhood living facilities of the first floor (hereinafter “instant store”) as indicated in the attached Table 1 list, and thereafter, Defendant B operated a restaurant at the instant store with Defendant C upon renewal of the lease agreement.

B. At around 2005, Defendant C, with the Plaintiff’s permission, set up a roof room on the roof of the building listed in the annexed Table 1, on the (A) section 9.1 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant dispute part”), which connects each point, among the rooftop of the building listed in the annexed Table 1. The Defendants occupy the dispute part of this case from around that time until the closing date of the pleadings of this case.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant B, including the name of the building at the court No. 2015da7777, and Defendant B delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2015 according to the result of the conciliation of the instant case.

On the other hand, on May 21, 2015, the Gunpo-si notified that “the Gunpo-si, etc. installed in the dispute part of this case constitutes an illegal building, and should be removed by June 22, 2015.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendants possess without any title the part of the dispute of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver the part of the dispute of this case to the plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion 1), the Defendants established a roof room in the instant dispute with a cost of KRW 8.9 million at the Plaintiff’s permission. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the said cost. 2) In light of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s store on January 26, 201.