1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims filed by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (Appointed Party) and the Appointed D, is as follows.

In fact, on April 14, 2008, the Defendant and F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to one-half shares of the E-Tan area of 49 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

After that, on September 13, 2010, F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares of the land in this case to mother G.

The Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on May 22, 201, after obtaining approval for use on November 15, 201, with respect to “the instant building” of the 45 square meters of single-story 1, 1, 1, 2, and 28.24 square meters of single-story 1, 1, 2,000 square meters of single-story 2, 2,000 square meters of single-story 2, 2,000, which was newly constructed on the instant land.

After that, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against G in the Jeonju District Court Decision 2013Kadan4539, which became final and conclusive on January 14, 2014.

On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff received the instant land from the auction procedure commenced based on the above judgment, and paid the price and acquired the ownership thereof.

On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/5 shares out of the instant land to the intervenors on September 25, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of September 25, 2015. D on April 8, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of March 31, 2016 with respect to the remaining 3/5 shares out of the instant land (=1 1/5 - 1/5) of the Plaintiff’s land.

Meanwhile, since the construction of the instant building, 49.5 square meters out of the instant land has been used as the site for the instant building.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff owned the land of this case, which is 1/2 of the total size of the land of this case and owned the land of this case, without permission, even though the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor continued to occupy the land of this case, as the owner of the land of this case, while the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case.