1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant B indicated in the attached Form No. 51, 52, 53, 9, 54, 55, and 51 among the area of 1,031 m2 in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si.

1. As to the defendant B and C

(a) Description of a claim: Description of the relevant information among the grounds for the claim for modification of the complaint and the purport of the claim;

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. As to Defendant D and E

(a) Description of a claim: Description of the relevant information among the grounds for the claim for modification of the complaint and the purport of the claim;

(b) Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. As to Defendant F, G, H, and I

A. According to the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a branch number, if a branch number is available) and the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 2, 2014 with respect to the building of 1,031 square meters in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si and 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, and 65 of the above land, and the fact that the plaintiff was registered in the above general building ledger in the name of the defendant F, G, H, and H, and the above fact that the house of 132 square meters in the roof of the roof and the prefabricated building was registered in the above general building ledger.

B. According to the above facts, the defendants, as long as they did not assert or prove the legitimate title of possession of the above land owned by the plaintiff, shall remove the housing of 132 square meters on the roof of the asbestos slate roof and the roof of the prefabricated-type panel structure and deliver the land to the plaintiff. The defendants, upon the plaintiff's request, jointly and severally liable to return the unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to 484,600 won per month from December 3, 2014 to the completion date of delivery (the result of appraisal by the appraiser) equivalent to 72,73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, and 65 in sequence to each point (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da7575, Apr. 17, 1985).

C. As to the defendants' assertion, the defendants are above.