1. The defendant is each indicated in the annexed drawing No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the land size 481 square meters in Seosan-si D Forest land and 481 square meters to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. F (Name B before the opening of name: G) completed the registration of ownership transfer on each land listed in the separate sheet on November 29, 2005.

On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid on each land listed in the separate sheet, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor completed the registration of ownership transfer on each land listed in the separate sheet on August 16, 2016.

B. Around May 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with F as to each parcel of land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with F, and newly constructed or constructed each of the buildings listed in paragraph (1) above (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of the commission of appraisal by the Korea Land and Information Corporation to the Seogu District History, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s successor, the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet, is a claim for removal of interference based on ownership, and can seek removal of the instant building and delivery of the site to the Defendant, the owner of the instant building.

B. The Defendant asserts that he exercise the right to purchase the building, but the Defendant did not register the right to lease the land indicated in the attached list, and did not complete the registration concerning the building of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, who is not the lessor of the instant lease agreement, cannot exercise the right to purchase the building.

(See Decision 96Da14517 delivered on June 14, 1996, etc.). 3. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim

A. As the Plaintiff lost ownership of each land listed in the separate sheet, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful. However, in a performance lawsuit, the person who asserts that he/she is the right to demand performance has standing to sue and has the standing to be the defendant, and in fact, the said person has the standing to be the obligor