1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

(1) Defendant B’s building indicated in the attached Table No. 1.

Basic facts are based on this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, the part corresponding to the judgment of the court of first instance (5-6) is as follows.

(j) Of the instant building, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, Defendant C(2), D(1), E(3), and F(1) occupation respectively of the instant building; Defendant D is liable to remove the instant building from the Plaintiff and occupy and remove the instant land and occupy the instant land as well as Defendant C(32), E(1), E(3), and 52.8m2, and Defendant F is liable to withdraw from each of the instant building, insofar as the Defendants do not specifically have any legitimate right to possess the said building.).

Defendant B asserts to the following purport:

① In the mediation of the third case, a lease agreement on the instant land was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B.

② Defendant B collected only the removal of the instant building, despite the intent to pay reasonable rent or sell the instant building to the Plaintiff according to its objective value, which constitutes an abuse of rights.

First, we examine the above argument ①

Defendant B acquired the ownership of the instant building on January 3, 2013, and thereafter, on March 4, 2015, the third mediation of the instant case was concluded that “Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff KRW 568,00 per month from July 2014 to the fee for the use of the instant land building.”