1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (1) (A) indicated in the attached sheet No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, on the ground of 446.3 square meters in Seo-gu Busan, Seo-gu.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership by purchasing 446.3 square meters in Seo-gu Busan, Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) through a public sale procedure.

B. (1) Defendant B had approximately 13 to 14 years ago, ordered the instant land.

(2) Order 1. A indicating that the part as described in paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as “the first site of this case”) is located above

(1) Each building described in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant building”) has been occupied.

(2) Defendant C had approximately twenty (20) years prior to the instant land order 1.B.

(2) Disposition 1.B, located on the part described in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant second site”).

(1) Each building described in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant second building”) has been occupied.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, result of a request for surveying and appraisal to appraiser E by this court, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff seeking the removal of interference based on ownership as the owner of the instant land, Defendant B removed the instant building on the ground of the instant land, deliver the instant first site, and Defendant C has a duty to remove the instant building and deliver the instant second site.

B. The Defendants’ assertion (1) asserted to the purport that, at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land by public sale, the Defendants should be deemed to have been recognized as possession and use of the Defendants’ land since they knew the existence of the first and second buildings owned by the Defendants on the instant land at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land by public sale. However, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

(2) Furthermore, the Defendants purchased the instant building No. 1 from F at the time of Defendant B’s purchase of approximately KRW 20 million by approximately 13 to 14 years, and Defendant C purchased the instant building No. 2 prior to approximately 20 years.