1. The Defendants shall withdraw from the building on the ground of 165 square meters in Donsan-gu, Jeonju-si.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On July 22, 1996, the Plaintiff: (a) on July 22, 1996, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) Dansan-gu, 165 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

A) On July 1, 1996, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale. 2) At the time that the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant land, a wooden flag and a bridge roof house 26.4 square meters on that ground was destroyed or lost on August 30, 2006, and a new building (hereinafter “instant building”) such as the attached image was newly constructed.

The Defendants concluded a lease agreement on the instant building with E and used the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Even in cases where the owner of land is entitled to demand the owner of the building to remove the building and deliver the site on the ground that the building has no right to use the land for its existence, if a person other than the owner of the building occupies the building, the owner of the land shall not implement the removal, etc. of the building unless such a removal is made.

Therefore, the land ownership is deemed to be hindered in the smooth realization of the land by the above possession. Therefore, the land owner may request the possessor of the building to withdraw from the building as an exclusion of interference based on his own ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43801 Decided August 19, 2010). According to the above facts, the Defendants, who possess the instant building, who are not the owner of the instant building, do not have any assertion or proof as to the right to use the instant land for the existence of the instant building, are obliged to withdraw from the instant building.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.