1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,011,461 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 16, 2015 to February 3, 2016, and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 1995, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 23/400 shares out of 322 square meters (hereinafter “C before division”) in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “C before division”), and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 377/40 shares out of the above land on November 20, 2004.

B. On the other hand, on August 5, 1995, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the Defendant with respect to D-6 square meters (the land adjacent to C-owned land prior to subdivision) and its ground buildings (the part of C-owned land prior to subdivision is also included in the relevant site; hereinafter “instant building”).

C. After doing so, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to seek partition of co-owned property against C before partition (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Kadan4623), and the above support was closed on September 17, 2014, and on October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff sentenced the Defendant to a judgment of dividing the remaining 322 square meters as owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ separate judgment”), and the separate judgment became final and conclusive on October 30, 2014.

On November 28, 2014, after a separate judgment became final and conclusive, the said 19 square meters of the C’s land was divided into Yongsan-si, Changwon-si E among the land B before subdivision.

(hereinafter referred to as “C land after division”) the remaining 322 square meters of the land before the division is divided. (e)

The instant building is constructed with a part 2 (b) of 38 square meters (hereinafter “the part in dispute”) connected in order to each point of the attached Form 9, 11, 12, 7, 8, and 9, among the land in C after the partition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant owning the instant building constructed on the ground of the dispute owned by the Plaintiff, thereby obstructing the Plaintiff’s ownership of the part in the dispute, and occupying and using the part in the dispute.