1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is each indicated in the attached sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 on the ground of 534 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation with respect to 534 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to D, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. Defendant B owned each of the items of item (a) of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 attached Table 1 on the ground of the instant land and each of the items of item (a) of the same appraisal map connected with each point of 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 attached Table 1, and owned a section of the building 10 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) in sequence. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant building is owned by Nonparty E, and the Defendants did not have the responsibility to remove the building against the Plaintiff, since the instant building was owned by Nonparty E.

However, in all documents (the written reply dated March 4, 2015, and preparatory documents dated April 9, 2015) submitted during the pleading, the Defendants constructed the instant building and recognized the instant building as owned by the Defendants and did not dispute it;

Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, is residing in each of the above buildings.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number in the case of additional number), the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the original branch of the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, Defendant B is obligated to remove each of the instant buildings and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and Defendant C is obligated to withdraw from each of the instant buildings.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they lawfully leased the instant land from Nonparty E, the former owner of the instant land, and that Nonparty G, the husband of Nonparty F, the next owner of Nonparty F, allowed the Defendants to use the instant land, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and even if each of the above arguments is acknowledged as true, the Defendants merely do so.