1. The Defendants are each indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 16 through 22, 7, 8, 23 through 28, 15, and 1 among the F 1,371 square meters in Pakistan-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to F. F. 1,371 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. G is the owner of a house (D) on the part of which part 29, 30, 31, 34 through 38, and 29 of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 16 through 22, 7, 8, 23 through 28, 15, and 1 among the land in the instant case, are located on the part (B) part of the attached Form No. 608 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building site”) connected with each of the points in the attached Form No. 29, 30, 30, 31, 34 through 38, and 29 in sequence.

C. The Defendants are occupying and using the instant building until now.

The Plaintiff won a lawsuit against G to seek the delivery of the site of the instant building and the removal of the instant building (Ui Government District Court 2017Kadan85180), and the G filed a subsequent appeal (Ui Government District Court 2018Na209608), but the appeal was dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B, D, and E: The absence of dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the purport of the whole, Defendant C: the judgment of deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The plaintiff, the owner of the land in this case, who is the owner of the land in this case, may claim the withdrawal of the owner of the building from the owner based on the ownership. Thus, the defendant C is obligated to leave the building in this case.

(b) Judgment made by the confession of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claims against the defendant B, D, and E, the defendant B, D, and E are obligated to leave the building of this case.

As Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with G, the owner of the instant building, and occupied and used the instant building, Defendant B asserts that he cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s eviction. If Defendant B has opposing power as to the right of lease on the instant building, the opposing power is basically a building.