1. The Defendants shall have the cement block structure 1312 square meters above Sejong Special Self-Governing City, with the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition: (i) Facts without dispute;

A. On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff received a decision to permit the sale of the land of Sejong Special Self-Governing City M& 1312 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Daejeon District Court’s N real estate auction procedure, and acquired ownership in full around that time.

B. B around 1978, cement block structure and branch roof house 59.78 square meters on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed registration of preservation of ownership on August 21, 1979 with respect to the said building.

C. B owned the above building and occupied the instant land corresponding to the site of the building. During the litigation of this case, on January 9, 2018, the heir died, and the heir C and the other Defendants, the wife, are the Defendants.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the defendants owned the building of this case on the land of this case and occupied the land of this case without permission. Thus, the defendants are obligated to remove the above building and return the land to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

B. On this basis, the Defendants asserted that: (a) around 1978, B entered into a land lease agreement with the former owner of the instant land by setting the lease term up to the duration of the building, rent up to 16 km per year, and the Plaintiff, who was awarded a successful bid in the auction procedure, succeeded to the lessor’s status; (b) the Plaintiff may not seek removal of the building and delivery of the land; and (c) the Plaintiff claims that he exercise the right to purchase the instant building based on Articles 643 and 283 of the Civil Act if the lease contract for the instant land is terminated and the expiration of the lease period.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that B entered into a lease agreement on the land of this case, and the Defendants may exercise the claim for purchase of buildings against the Plaintiff.