1. The part of the plaintiffs' motion to leave the building among the lawsuits of this case is dismissed.

2. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) Chungcheong-si;

1. The description of the claim is as listed in the separate sheet of claim(s) and “the changed cause of claim(s).”

2. Judgment without holding any applicable legal argument (Articles 208(3)1 and 257(1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. On the other hand, ex officio dismissal part of the plaintiffs' claim for eviction out of 2,212 square meters among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for eviction out of 1,2,3,4,5, and 1 attached drawings among the 2,212 square meters in Chungcheong-si D, Chungcheongnam-si, is deemed lawful.

If the possessor of a building, etc. is the person liable for removal, it is not necessary to enforce a separate order to leave because the obligation to remove the building, etc. includes the duty to remove the building, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da213916, Apr. 28, 2017, etc.). Likewise, it is unnecessary to enforce a separate order to leave because the duty to remove the building, etc. includes the duty to leave in

I would like to say.

Therefore, as seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s obligation to remove the house of 161.02 square meters of the apartment of the roof of the steel-frame 161.02 square meters and the obligation to deliver the above land, among the land size 2,212 square meters of the attached drawing among the land size 1,2,3,4,5, and 1 of the attached Table among the land size 2,212 square meters before D, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the Defendant’s obligation to remove the above building and the obligation to deliver the said land. As such, the part of the Plaintiffs’ claim for the eviction of the instant lawsuit