1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a)payment of 10,150,000 won each;

B. From January 3, 2018, the list of Plaintiffs is as shown in Attached Form 1.

Facts of recognition

The defendant is the owner of a building listed in the attached Form 2 list (hereinafter referred to as the "instant building") located on the ground of the attached Form 1 attached hereto.

On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiffs acquired ownership of each land listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in the voluntary auction procedure with Suwon District Court D on November 3, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] According to the facts of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 3-1, 2, 3-1, and 4-2 of Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 and 4-2 of the whole pleadings, and the judgment of removal and extradition claim as to the grounds for claim, the defendant possessed the land of this case by owning the building of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the building of this case is to be removed and the land of this case is to be transferred.

In this regard, the defendant has acquired legal superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Code, and thus, he cannot accept the above claim of the plaintiffs.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-2 as a whole, the original defendant owned the land of this case and completed the registration of establishment of neighboring E organizations on August 13, 2007, and issued a voluntary decision of commencement of auction on August 6, 2014 upon the application of E organizations with respect to each of the land of this case, the fact that Suwon District Court D on August 6, 2014, the plaintiffs purchased the land of this case at the above auction procedure, and the fact that the defendant is the owner of the building of this case as seen earlier.

Article 366 of the Civil Code provides that if land and the building on the ground belong to another owner due to an auction of the property mortgaged, the owner of the land shall be deemed to have established the superficies against the owner of the building.

The plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the land of this case in the above auction procedure, and thus, the owner of the land of this case and the building of this case are different. Thus, the defendant, who is the owner of this case, is the land of this case in accordance with Article