1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Based on the selective claim added in the trial, the defendant is against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The land before subdivision was owned by Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C’s mother F, respectively, with respect to F’s share of 1/2 shares. Since the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff B, and C was made on August 8, 2005 under the receipt of No. 52310 on August 8, 2005, the land before subdivision became owned by Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff B, and C, respectively.

B. From around 196 to 1997, F entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a rice-based basis that the land before subdivision is the annual difference between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On December 8, 2009, the land before subdivision was divided into the E 1,397 square meters in size (hereinafter “instant land”) and G 484 square meters in size. D.

The Defendant, after the lease, has installed and used the plastic houses and containers listed in Paragraph (2) of the Disposition of this case on the land of this case, occupies the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of branch offices), the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Korea Cadastral Corporation and the branch offices of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated due to more than two years of rent delay, and sought restitution against the Defendants for the removal of each of the said cargo and container and delivery of the instant land.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the fact that the land before the division was leased to the Defendant by the Dop and F is as follows: (a) the entry of the evidence No. 5; (b) the witness F of the first instance trial; and (c) the result of the party principal examination of the Plaintiff F of the first instance trial; and (d) the status of the joint lessor

It is not sufficient to recognize that a lessor succeeded to the status of a lessor or from F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, this part of the plaintiffs.