1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) remove each building listed in Appendix 1;

(b) the land set out in Appendix 2;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. C Co., Ltd. newly built on the ground of the instant land in around 1998 the 1st basement and the 5th floor above that of the ground (hereinafter “instant building”), and the said building is an aggregate building subject to divided ownership.

C On September 4, 1998, Co., Ltd. completed the registration of ownership preservation in relation to each subparagraph of attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant subparagraph”) among the instant buildings.

(c)

On June 9, 2010, the defendant completed the registration of the transfer of ownership for the reason of public auction as to each of the houses of this case.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment on the cause of the claim can be evaluated as possessing the land of this case through the possession of the heading room of this case, which is the land of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the heading room of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, upon the plaintiff's request, unless there are special circumstances such as the existence of legitimate source of right to possess.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. As to the assertion on the existence of possessory right source, the Defendant constructed the instant building with the Plaintiff’s consent to land use, and the Defendant acquired each of the instant units from the instant building through public sale, there is a legitimate possessory right source to the Defendant.

However, the circumstance or evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is that the Defendant had a legitimate right to use or to possess a right to possess a site that is entirely transferred to the Defendant on the basis of the time of acquiring the ownership of each of the units of this case ( June 9, 2010) at the time when the Defendant, not at the time of the new construction of the instant building (198). Furthermore, the Defendant has owned such right to use or to possess a right to possess a site until now.