1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

A. Of the 374 square meters in Gangnam-si D, the attached drawing indicating 3, 4, 18, 17, 30, 31, 32, 33, 19, 20, 21, among the 374 square meters in Gangnam-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 18, 2013, the Plaintiff completed each registration for the transfer of ownership on the size of 374 square meters in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, and on April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff completed each registration for the transfer of ownership on the size of 565 square meters in Gangnam-si.

B. The Defendants occupy each land as indicated in the attached Form No. 374 square meters in Gangnam-si and 565 square meters in the E, a building, warehouse, toilet, etc. with 1/2 equity right holders of the said land, as shown in the attached Form No. 3.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence A1-1, evidence A2-2, evidence A2-2, result of each survey and appraisal by appraiser F, result of on-site verification by this Court, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants, the owners of the above building, warehouse, and toilet, are obligated to remove the above building, warehouse, toilet, etc. to the Plaintiff, the owner of each of the above land, and deliver each of the above land to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they were entitled to possess each of the above lands as owners of the above buildings, warehouses, toilets, etc., but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

C. Next, the Defendants stated to the effect that the Plaintiff’s request for removal of the above building, warehouse, toilet, etc. was an abuse of rights even though the net G used by the Defendants for the above period was 14 years since purchased the above building, warehouse, toilet, etc., and the Plaintiff’s request for removal of the above building, warehouse, toilet, etc. was also an abuse of rights. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s subjective purpose of the exercise of rights was to inflict damages on the Defendants and to inflict damages on the Defendants, and that the exercise of rights was objectively in violation of social order.

(A) The plaintiff's claim is justified, even if the other party's loss is significantly high than the profit that the plaintiff has gained by exercising his right, such circumstance alone does not constitute an abuse of right.