1. Of the buildings listed in the attached list, the Defendant each of the annexed reference marks 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 16, and 11 of the attached sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 8.

On December 22, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 106 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

B. And on September 1, 2006, D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to buildings listed in the attached list, which are the buildings of 96 square meters and its ground located adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “instant buildings”).

C. However, around around 2011, the Defendant leased four square meters of the instant building from D (the part in paragraph (1) of this Article, which is the two parts indicated in paragraph (1) and resides in this place until now. The said part of the instant crime is constructed on the Plaintiff’s land.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, D violated the Plaintiff’s ownership on the land by owning part of the part of the instant building on the Plaintiff’s land, and thus, it is obligated to remove the part of the instant land and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the lessee of the building of this case, is obligated to leave the part of the crime to remove it.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) As to the lawsuit in this case against the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff should withdraw from the part against the defendant's invasion, the defendant does not have any legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful. However, in the performance lawsuit, the plaintiff's standing to sue is deemed to be the defendant's standing, and the plaintiff and the defendant do not require the plaintiff to actually demand performance or be the person responsible for performance. Thus, the defendant's defense as to the lease deposit is without merit. 2) The defendant's judgment on the lease deposit is against the defendant.