1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,447,00 and its related KRW 5% per annum from May 10, 2016 to February 2, 2018, and from February 3, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance by consultation and division on January 25, 1992, with respect to the Jeonju District Court’s all-round indictment on May 28, 1999, No. 52693, with respect to the cement c ground wooden tank and 26.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. D, under the direction of E by the actual operator E of the Defendant who removed the house for redevelopment project in the vicinity of the instant house, stated the index to remove the house at the end after receiving the phone from E during the period of performing the removal work of the house located in E in Y-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

D, while carrying out the additional removal work, erroneously stated the index and removed the housing of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1 to 5, 9, 10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The party who removed the instant house alleged by the Defendant is G that not the Defendant but the Defendant was awarded a contract for the removal work.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendant is unlawful by filing a lawsuit against a non-qualified person.

(b) In the action for performance of the determination, a person selected as a person responsible for performance by the plaintiff shall be subject to the defendant's standing.

The reason alleged by the defendant is only a reason to judge whether it is a claim in the merits, and it is not a matter to judge whether it is a party standing.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, E, who is the actual operator of the defendant, ordered D to remove the house around the house of this case and made a mistake of not limiting the scope of work by clearly designating the house to be removed, and D removed the house of this case which is not owned by the defendant. As such, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort as the user of E and D.

(b).