1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, each point is indicated in the annexed sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff implemented a B housing construction project for the relevant area including each piece of land listed in the separate sheet. As to the land No. 1 listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) on June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the acquisition of each piece of land for each public site as to the land No. 2 listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) on May 14, 2015, and paid KRW 11,346,000 in total to the Defendant as compensation for losses.

B. The defendant currently occupies each of the instant plastic houses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 4-1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, since the Defendant installed each of the instant vinyls on the ground of the instant land Nos. 1 and 2, and occupied each of the instant land and owned each of the instant sub-paragraph 1, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s ownership, the Defendant is obligated to remove each of the instant vinyls and deliver each of the instant sub-paragraph 1 to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that he cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until he receives adequate compensation, relocation measures, and life countermeasures.

On the other hand, the issue of whether the defendant is eligible to receive compensation must be disputed through administrative litigation, separate from the case, and even if it can be contested in the case of family affairs, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is eligible to receive compensation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.