1. The Defendants, among the real estate listed in the attached list, are the Plaintiff, with the 36.

Basic Facts

A. Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s children, Defendant C is the spouse of Defendant B, and Defendant D and E are the children of Defendant B.

B. The Plaintiff is the owner of the F,377 square meters in the mountain, mountain, and mountain (hereinafter “instant land”).

On the ground of the instant land, as indicated in the attached list, there are the main building among the above buildings, the main building among which is a cement block structure and a 52.31 square meters and a wooden roof 36.03 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant main building,” and the “instant appurtenant building”), such as cement block structure and a branch roof, which are the main building, and a wooden roof 36.03 square meters, which are affiliated buildings. The Plaintiff completed registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on September 5, 1979.

C. The Defendants occupy the instant land, the instant main building, and the instant appurtenant building.

On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking delivery, etc. of the instant land and the instant main building ( Daejeon District Court 2014Kadan21161). In the instant case, on October 2, 2014, the lower court rendered a judgment including the order that “the Defendant shall deliver the instant land and the instant main building to the Plaintiff,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 22, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The registration of preservation of ownership has been completed in the name of the plaintiff as to the ownership of the instant appurtenant building in the name of the plaintiff, since the facts without dispute, significant facts, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and determination of the purport of the whole pleadings. Thus, the instant appurtenant building is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant appurtenant building was completed on March 17, 2009 by Defendant B and was originally acquired at his own expense. However, according to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff obtained approval for use on January 9, 1981 with respect to the main building and its appurtenant building of this case. Thus, the entries or images of the evidence No. 1, No. 2, and No. 2 are alone.