1. The defendant shall leave from the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. In full view of the entries and shapes of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff: (a) owned the instant land with respect to shares of 5,017/7,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) D, with respect to shares of 1,983/7,000 of the instant land, 1,980 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); (c) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D, the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) on June 5, 2019, seeking removal of the instant building and delivery, etc. of the instant land, and filed a judgment with the court on June 5, 2019 that “D removed the instant building to the Plaintiff and delivered the instant land”; and (d) the Defendant currently possessed the instant building as a lessee of the instant building.

According to the above facts, one of the co-owners of the land of this case can seek a withdrawal from the building of this case against the defendant, who is the possessor of the building of this case, which interferes with the exercise of ownership of the land of this case as an act of preserving the jointly-owned property, and the defendant has a duty to leave the building of this case against the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the lease contract with D, a lessor, is valid as a housing lessee who has an opposing power over the building of this case, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's eviction request.

In this regard, since the opposing power of the health zone and the building lease is basically about the building and is not aimed at the land, the ownership of the land cannot be restricted, and even if the opposing right exists for the building in the land, the right to use the land can not be viewed as the right to oppose the landowner.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43801 Decided August 19, 2010). Therefore, the circumstance alleged by the Defendant is that it refuses the Plaintiff’s request for eviction.