1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A is attached to the building indicated in the attached Table on the land size of 102 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by fully paying the successful bid price in the compulsory auction procedure with respect to the land of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I and 102 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Defendant A is the owner who completed the registration of ownership preservation on December 8, 1995 with respect to the buildings listed in the attached list existing on the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J land (hereinafter “instant building”), which are the land adjacent to the instant land.

C. From Defendant A, Defendant B, among the instant buildings on the instant land, the part on the ship (i) size of 26 square meters connected in sequence with each point of 7,8,9,10,11,12,5,13, 13, 13, and 7, among the instant buildings on the instant land; the part on the ship connected each point of 19,20,21,22,5,23,24,25,26,27, 27, and 19 in sequence; the part on the ship (c) size of 47 square meters connected each point of 28,29,31, 32, 33, and 28 square meters; the part on the instant land of 36 square meters connected each point of 36 square meters and 444 square meters connected each of 36 square meters and 344 square meters, and the part on the leased land of 31,30,344,414 square meters and 47,314444.

Meanwhile, the rent for the instant land from February 21, 2014 to May 31, 2015 is KRW 10,506,300, and the monthly rent from May 2015 is KRW 701,300.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the result of the appraiser K's survey and appraisal, the result of the entrustment of rent appraisal to the L Appraisal Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff claiming for the removal of disturbance based on the ownership of the instant land, and Defendant A, the owner of the instant land, did not have a legitimate title to occupy and use the instant land, among the instant buildings located on the instant land.