1. The Defendant removed the Plaintiff from Yancheon C 430 square meters above ground, and 44.628 square meters away from the coagument, and the said site.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 7, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased from D the Chuncheon C & 430 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) for the same month.

8. As to the instant land, Chuncheon District Court No. 3703 completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale.

B. On March 9, 1983, the Defendant purchased and owns 44.628 square meters of the land in this case’s ground wooden mentor and coagumary house (hereinafter “instant building”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, 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 defendant is obligated to remove the ground buildings of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land, and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s defense (i) concluded a land lease contract for the ownership of the instant land, and thus, the Defendant has the right to lawfully possess the instant land, and if the instant lease contract was terminated, the Defendant’s defense was asserted to the effect that he would exercise the right to purchase the instant land. However, even if examining the record of the instant case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant concluded a lease contract for the ownership of the instant land. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense is without merit.

She also argued that the plaintiff's claim of this case constitutes an abuse of right, but it is difficult to see that the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking removal of building and delivery of land owned by the defendant itself constitutes an abuse of right, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the claim of this case is an abuse of right. Thus, the above defense is without merit

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is well-grounded, and it is so decided as per Disposition.