1. The Defendants are real estate indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, and 3.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 3/10 shares of the land owned by the Plaintiff among 1,073 square meters prior to Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”). The Defendants are the owners of the land owned by the Plaintiff, Seocho-gu, Seoul E and F (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) and the buildings indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the buildings owned by the Defendant”) that are the above ground buildings, purchased from Nonparty G and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 24, 2012, respectively.

B. Of the buildings owned by the Defendants, the part of 6 square meters on board 20 square meters in sequence with each point indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 (hereinafter “the instant building part”) is constructed on the ground by erosioning the Plaintiff’s land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, as co-owners of the land owned by the Plaintiff, have a duty to remove the building portion on the ground of the above part on the land owned by the Plaintiff and deliver the same part on the land of the above part 6m2.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants’ assertion summary ① The boundary restoration surveying should be surveyed by the method and standard points of the surveying at the time of the division registration of the Defendants’ land. Since the instant boundary restoration surveying (No. 8-3,5) and the cadastral status surveying based on the aforementioned cadastral survey (No. 4) are not so illegal, the instant building part does not violate the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land.

② Even if the part of the instant building violated the Plaintiff’s land ownership.

In light of the fact that there was a difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Defendant and the Defendants did not know about the fact that the boundary was infringed upon at the time of the purchase of the above building, the Plaintiff’s removal and request for delivery of the building constitutes abuse of rights.