1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 72,473 square meters of forests and fields C in Gyeonggi-gu.

1. Determination as to the claim for collection

A. In light of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the facts of recognition, it is recognized that the defendant, without a title to possess, neglected to neglect one ropier and three macker 1 and three macker mackers (hereinafter “three macker and macker macker macker”) on the ground of 72,473m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) of the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, the Plaintiff owned without a title to possess, and there is no reflective evidence otherwise.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to collect 1 to the plaintiff of this case and 3 to extract 1 to the plaintiff of this case.

2. Determination as to the claim for extradition

A. Since the Defendant’s assertion without title illegally occupied the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and the instant land without title, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building and the instant land to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) In light of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the entire images and pleadings, it is recognized that the defendant without the title to possess the building of this case owned by the plaintiff, and there is no counter-proof. According to the above facts, the defendant, an illegal occupant, is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, the owner of this case. Furthermore, as to whether the defendant occupied the land of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant occupied the land of this case only with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(A) The Plaintiff did not specify the location and size of the instant land in the instant case and the instant robeets, and in light of the size of each of the said movables, the part of the instant land possessed by each of the said movables is extremely limited, and the existence of each of the said movables alone cannot be deemed as possessing the entire land of this case). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be recognized.