1. The plaintiffs

A. Defendant C is each indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 11, 9, 10, 10, and 1 among the 307 square meters in Gangnam-si E.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owns a 307 square meters in Gangnam-si, E, F 417 square meters in size, G forest land, 1790 square meters in size.

B. Defendant C, in sequence with each point of item (a) of the annexed drawings among the land E, and the part of the F land, connecting each point of which is indicated in the annexed drawings 1, 2, 11, 9, 10, 10, and 2, 3, 12, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 2, among the land, are connected in sequence, and the part of the attached drawings among the G forest is indicated in the attached drawings 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, and 3. Defendant C, in sequence, occupies the land on the ground (hereinafter “instant housing”) and Defendant D is residing in the instant housing.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, and the result of this court's verification, the result of the survey, appraisal and supplementation of the Korea Land Information Corporation, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, Defendant C shall remove the instant house and deliver the said land to the plaintiffs, and Defendant D shall have the duty to withdraw from the instant house.

B. Defendant C’s assertion and determination of Defendant C newly built the instant house with the consent of H, who is the father of the Plaintiffs’ evidence, and paid the land rent, so the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is groundless. However, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant C entered into a land lease agreement with H, who is the father of the Plaintiffs’ evidence or the Plaintiffs when constructing the instant house.

Defendant C also asserts to the effect that he cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request until he pays the rental deposit for a small apartment as moving expenses or relocates the present building, but the above amount shall be paid to the Plaintiffs as moving expenses.

Since it cannot be deemed that Defendant C has a duty to relocate or construct a building, the above assertion by Defendant C is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.