1. The defendant (Appointed) and the appointed parties shall leave the buildings listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs own 1/2 shares of 523 square meters of D forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties possess and use the buildings listed in the attached Table on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”). On August 14, 2013, registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of Nonparty E on the instant building.

B. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against E in relation to the removal, etc. of the instant building as the District Court Decision 2013Da14613, and received a favorable judgment. The Plaintiffs appealed in the said judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2014Na7897, supra), but the dismissal judgment was pronounced, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 11, 2014.

C. After the above judgment became final and conclusive, the Plaintiffs were subject to compulsory execution with the above court F, but the Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted the right of retention and did not perform compulsory execution on the ground that he occupied and used the instant building together with the designated parties who are their family members.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 2, 5 through 8 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. First, even in cases where an owner of land is entitled to demand the owner of the building to remove the building and deliver its site on the ground that the building has no right to use the land for its existence, if a person other than the owner of the building occupies the building, the owner of the land shall not undertake the removal of the building unless the owner of the land removes the possession of the building.

Therefore, since the land ownership is interfered with the smooth realization of land by the above possession, the land owner can request the withdrawal of the building occupant as an exclusion of interference based on his own ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43801 Decided August 19, 2010, etc.). B.

The above legal principles.