1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) remove the buildings listed in the annexed building list;

(b)each entry in the Schedule of Attached Land;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale due to voluntary auction conducted on October 1, 2007, No. 22541, which was received on September 19, 2007, with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet of land (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

B. C newly constructed a building listed in the separate sheet of the building on each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”), and completed registration of preservation of ownership on November 5, 199. On May 8, 2008, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of the said subordinate registry office 10180 on the ground of inheritance due to a division of agreement on September 30, 2007 with respect to the instant building on May 8, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, as the owner of the building of this case, is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver each of the land of this case to the plaintiff, unless he asserts and proves that he has a legitimate right to possess and use each of the land of this case.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment on the above (1) is the defendant's assertion that the defendant is the legal superficies holder on each of the land of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) The Defendant, upon filing an application for individual rehabilitation with Suwon District Court 201Da46720, filed a decision to authorize the repayment plan on June 17, 201 to the Plaintiff for the obligation to pay the unpaid rent due to the possession and use of each of the instant land, and paid the rent according to the repayment plan. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has the right to occupy and use each of the instant land. However, the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation to obtain authorization for the repayment plan regarding the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to be borne by the Plaintiff’s use of the land without permission, and accordingly, obtained the authorization for the repayment plan.