1. The Defendant connects the Plaintiff with each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the land size No. 4,022 square meters in Jinjin-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for B large 4,022 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), E forest land and 1,174 square meters, and two buildings on the instant land, which were owned D in the voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction”).

B. In the instant voluntary auction procedure, the Defendant reported the lien to the effect that it did not receive construction cost of KRW 262 million from D.

C. Around May 2017, the Defendant installed the 쇠 pipe structure (hereinafter “instant structure”) on the ground of 12 square meters on the part (A) of the instant land, which connects each point of (a) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 attached drawings, which are used as an access road among the instant land, in sequence.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, images of Gap evidence 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land, may seek removal of the instant structure based on the ownership, based on the claim for removal of interference based on the ownership.

Although the Defendant asserted that there was a lien on the land of this case, the Defendant continued to possess the land of this case prior to the decision to commence voluntary auction of this case.

The Plaintiff cannot set up a lien against the Plaintiff, as long as there is no assertion as to the fact that the Plaintiff lawfully acquired possession of the instant land after the successful bid of the instant land.

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