1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, among the land size of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, 778.6 square meters and D, 116.7 square meters, on the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, on July 2, 2009, purchased shares in Co-ownership of 15.27/78.6 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 778.6 square meters and 2.29/116.79 (hereinafter “instant land”) from Nonparty E and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 7, 2009.

In order to successively connect each point of 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 13, which are the part above the land of this case, the non-party F set up a sales panel or shower stop (hereinafter "the building of this case") on the ground of 28.4 square meters in part 28.4 square meters, and the defendant is operating the "G" within the building of this case.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a favorable judgment (Seoul Western District Court 2013Da33921) on June 13, 2014 by demanding F to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land, and the said judgment was finalized on August 9, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the whole purport of pleading

2. The party's assertion and the plaintiff of this court's judgment against F as co-owner of the land of this case obtained a final judgment in favor of F by seeking removal of the building of this case, and for its enforcement, the defendant must leave the building of this case. The defendant shall exercise the right to claim removal of disturbance based on the ownership of the land of this case and seek removal of the defendant

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant must respond to the plaintiff's request unless he asserts or proves the right to use the land of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that he had superficies to use the land of this case, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, the defendant asserts that he has the right to possess as a legitimate lessee, but the right of lease alleged by the defendant is against the building of this case, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is about the ownership of the land of this case.