1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the 412 square meters in racing-si, each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 shall be in order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land indicated in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant’s order 1-B during the period from August 2015 to September 2015, 2015.

Order No. 1-A on each ground described in the paragraph.

Each ground object as described in the subsection (hereinafter “each ground object of this case”) shall be set up, and the site is owned by each ground object of this case until now.

C. The sum of the area of each site for each of the instant ground objects is 204 square meters [204 square meters = 12 square meters in the container site area indicated in attached Table 3 of attached Table 12 square meters in attached Table 2].

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), entry of Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts as to the removal and the request for extradition, the defendant, barring special circumstances, has a duty to remove each of the instant ground objects set up on each of the instant ground objects site to the plaintiff, and deliver each of the instant ground objects site to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff sought to transfer the entire land of this case against the Defendant, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant possessed the entire land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (On the other hand, the Plaintiff also filed an application for rent appraisal on the premise that the Defendant occupied only the site of each of the instant land of this case, on the condition that the Plaintiff occupied only the site of each of the instant land of this case, and on the other hand, filed an application for rent appraisal on the part exceeding each of the instant land of this case.

B. As to the claim for damages equivalent to the rent, the Defendant, who illegally occupied the instant land, out of the gist of the Plaintiff’s claim, is the land of this case from June 29, 2015 to the Plaintiff.