The Plaintiff, the Appointed D, with respect to the share of 3/17, the Defendant B, the Selection Party E, the F, G, H, I, and the J, with respect to each share of 2/17.

Although Defendant B asserted that the claim against Defendant B, etc. regarding the main defense against the claim against Defendant B, etc. was unlawful since the deceased K, Defendant B asserted that the lawsuit against the deceased is unlawful. However, in a case where the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit with the deceased who was aware of the death of the deceased and indicating the deceased as the Defendant, the rectification of the party indication is allowed (see Supreme Court Order 2005Ma425, Jul. 4, 2006). If the correction of the party indication was made as above, the lawsuit is not unlawful solely on the ground that the lawsuit was filed against the deceased initially.

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

Land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list of real estate in the judgment on removal and delivery claim (hereinafter “L land”) is owned by the Plaintiff (Evidence 2-1), and the network K owned a building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached list of real estate (hereinafter “L building”) above (Evidence 1) and the network K died and the designated parties, including Defendant B, inherited it according to their inheritance shares. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the designated parties are obligated to remove the L building and deliver the land to the Plaintiff as to each inheritance shares.

For this reason, Defendant B argued that the deceased K leased L land from a clan for the purpose of owning the building, and the Plaintiff is obligated to purchase the building in accordance with Article 643 of the Civil Act. However, there is no evidence to prove that the deceased K leased the land from the Mdae, the former owner of the L land, for the purpose of owning the building. Therefore, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, Defendant B owned L building for a period of several hundred and twenty years by constructing a new L building, and the clan approved by the clan, which the Plaintiff sought removal is against the principle of good faith and is an abuse of rights. However, the above circumstance alone alone contradicts the principle of good faith.

It is difficult to recognize that it constitutes abuse of rights.

Therefore, the designated parties D will be 17 percent.