1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases of application for suspension of compulsory execution, this Court shall decide on April 27, 2016.

Basic Facts

A. C filed a lawsuit against D, E, F, G, and H, seeking removal from the instant building, seeking removal of the instant building by removing the instant building, delivering the relevant building site, and return unjust enrichment by E, F, G, and H, with the Seoul District Court Decision 2014Gadan5486, as to the 51.5mm2 of the JJ ground ground brickd ground brickd, and the 51.31m2 of the J ground brickd residential building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On January 20, 2015, the Seoul District Court rendered a judgment that “D shall remove the instant building and deliver the site of the building.” The E, F, and G shall be one-story of the instant building, and H shall be one point five-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one of the instant building (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive between C and D because D did not file an appeal.

C. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from D and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 9, 2015.

C was killed on October 21, 2015, and the Defendant inherited C as C’s spouse on February 23, 2016, granted the succeeding execution clause concerning the instant judgment to the Plaintiff, who was D’s successor.

As to the land of this case, the Plaintiff owns 70/280 shares and the Defendant owns 15/280 shares, respectively, in relation to the 2,334 square meters and J 235 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), summary of the plaintiff's assertion in the whole pleadings against the defendant, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit as to partition of co-owned property as to the land of this case jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant, etc., and accordingly, the land of this case can be divided into co-owned property by independently owning by the plaintiff.

Therefore, it is based on the judgment of this case against the defendant.