1. The defendant shall remove the building stated in the attached list No. 1 to the plaintiff and the land stated in the attached list No. 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, who has awarded a successful bid (Seoul District Court C) and completed the registration of ownership transfer after obtaining real estate listed in attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The registration of ownership preservation was completed on May 13, 2015 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the same day under the Defendant’s name.

C. On June 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant occupied the instant land, which is the site for the instant building, without permission, and filed a claim for rent (In Incheon District Court Decision 2016Da28759, 2016 money15935). On December 5, 2016, this court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 6,400,000, which is an existing land rent, in installments, and the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 350,000,00 each month from November 13, 2016 to the date of the loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land or the date of the termination of the Defendant’s possession, the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.”

However, the defendant did not pay the corresponding rent even after the decision in lieu of the above conciliation became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Facts with this Court, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has no legal title to justify the possession of the land of this case, and the agreement specified in the previous claim for rent has not been implemented properly. Accordingly, the building of this case is removed upon the plaintiff's claim based on ownership, which is the owner of the land of this case, and is obligated to deliver the land of this case, which is the relevant site.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.