1. The defendant shall, in order to the plaintiffs, each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the land size of 1490 square meters in the case of permanent residence.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiffs currently own a field C 1490 square meters at permanent residence. The defendant, around 200 and around 2003, installed the part (b) of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 of the attached drawing Nos. 128 square meters and the part (c) of the attached drawing Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 7 of the attached drawing Nos. 17 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") and the part (c) part (c) of the attached drawing No. 128 square meters connected with each point of the above permanent residence of this case, and installed the land of this case with concrete, asphalt, and reinforced concrete packaging and reinforced concrete in order to occupy the land of this case.

B. According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant has a right to possess the land of this case to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to remove concrete and asphalt packaging installed on the land of this case and reinforced concrete, and deliver the land of this case to the defendant.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the owner's consent to use is obtained consent from the former owner of the instant land, and thus, the plaintiffs' request cannot be complied with.

According to the evidence No. 5, F, where the land of this case is located, can be acknowledged as the fact that the defendant stated that he/she was aware that he/she had obtained consent to use the land of this case at the time of implementing resident accommodation business, etc. on the land of this case, but the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant obtained consent to use the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Furthermore, even if the Defendant obtained the consent to the use of the instant land from the former owner of the instant land.