1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the lawsuit of this case, the removal of the Selection B’s house and land are the same.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in paragraphs (1) through (4) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a dismissal as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

"2015Gahap30178" in the second 8th part of the judgment of the first instance shall be "2015Gahap30718" and the second 12th "Plaintiff" in the second 8th part to "Defendant".

According to the change of the court of first instance and the appointment of the party at the trial, the term "this court" in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to read "Seoul Western District Court", "Plaintiff A" and "Plaintiffs" to read "Plaintiffs (Appointed Party)" and "Plaintiff B" to read "Appointed Party B".

2. Conclusion, of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim of the Appointed B’s “the removal of housing and the compulsory execution of land delivery,” and the part of the claim of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed A is unlawful, and thus, each of them is dismissed, and the remainder of the claim of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) as to the Appointed B shall be dismissed as

[This part of the instant housing, which was not removed from snow history, is difficult to deem that there was an agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on the instant land. As long as it is difficult to deem that there was an agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff, the part seeking the denial of compulsory execution on this part is not acceptable. The judgment of the first instance court is modified following the appointment of the party at the trial and the amendment of the purport of the claim by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).