1. The Defendants jointly indicate 1,2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached Form No. 1,838 square meters of the Seoul Seongbuk-gu D School Site for the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 7, 1962, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the land of Seongbuk-gu Seoul D School (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendants, among the instant land, possess the above portion in a state where a container with a height of 6 meters, 3 meters, and 2.6 meters is installed on the ground of 18 square meters on the part of the ship connected in order to indicate 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached drawing among the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, 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 Defendants occupied the portion of 18 square meters on board among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, thereby hindering the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants jointly have the duty to remove the containers installed in the above part of the ship and deliver the above part of the land to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendants’ assertion 1) The Defendant’s mother, as the Plaintiff’s founder and the Plaintiff’s mother, entrusted the authority from the deceased F, the external assistant of the Defendants, and operated a kindergarten on the instant land from 1970 to 1990. However, G, the former president of the Plaintiff, promised to transfer the ownership of the instant land in the Plaintiff’s name, thereby transferring the ownership of the instant land to the Plaintiff, thereby transferring the ownership of the Plaintiff’s land, but did not receive the purchase price. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is insufficient to acknowledge the facts of the Defendants’ assertion, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.