1. Defendant E:

A. Of the Seo-gu Daejeon-gu 3067.2m2m2, each point is indicated in the annexed drawings A, B, C, D, and A.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 2012, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to one-half shares of each of the instant land.

B. Around 198, Defendant C, G, and H newly built the first floor and the third floor above ground (hereinafter “existing buildings”) on the ground of 3087 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant I land”).

C. On August 19, 2005, Defendant C and D obtained a building permit from the head of the Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City on the extension of the existing building, but failed to complete the construction.

G died on August 27, 2006, and the Defendant C succeeded to the shares of G 1/3 of the instant land and the existing building on the ground thereof.

On June 24, 2011, the director of the Daejeon District Tax Office attached the respective shares of Defendant C and H among the existing buildings by taking Defendant C and H as delinquent taxpayers.

As a result, on July 1, 201, the registry of existing building was prepared on July 1, 201, and the registration of preservation of ownership of 2/3 shares in Defendant C, and 1/3 shares in H was completed in the future, and the registration of seizure was completed on each of the above shares in Defendant C and H.

On January 6, 2014, Defendant E completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of public sale on December 26, 2013.

E. The extended building whose construction was interrupted is currently the construction site part of the instant land and the part of the instant land I.

(hereinafter referred to as "the extension of this case"). 【The ground for recognition】 / [The fact that there is no dispute, each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Defendant C and D’s assertion that the extension of the existing building was consistent with the existing building, and Defendant E acquired the ownership of the existing building including the instant extension in the public sale process, Defendant E, the owner of the instant land, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiffs, who were the owners of the instant land.