A. Of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Forest Land, each point of which is indicated in the attached Form 8, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 8.

A. On May 3, 1965, the Plaintiff completed registration of initial ownership relating to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City forest land of 63 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Without any title, the Defendant, without any title, continuously occupies and uses part (b) part (c) of 17 square meters in the ship connecting each point of 8,4,9,10,11, and 8 of the instant land among the instant land before the filing of the instant lawsuit, which was connected on the ground of the main part (c) part of the instant land connected with the cement block set up warehouse, and owned it. The Defendant continues to occupy and use part (c) of 17 square meters in the ship connecting each point of 6,7,4,5, and6 of the said land in sequence.

C. The monthly rent of the instant land as of December 20, 2016 is KRW 5,440 per square meter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, evidence 2-1 and 2-2 of Gap evidence 2, result of a request for measurement and appraisal to the Vice Governor of the Seoul Central Land Information Corporation in this Court, result of a request for appraisal of rent for appraiser D in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition, the defendant, the owner of the land of this case, and 1-B.

The Plaintiff is obligated to remove the warehouse recorded in the port and deliver the instant part of the land to the Plaintiff. Since the date of construction of the warehouse, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 92,480 to the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the possession and use of the said part of the said land from March 7, 2016, which was the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the date of completion of delivery of the said part of the said land (i.e., KRW 5,40 won x 17 square meters, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent per 1 square meter per the said period) as of December 20, 2016.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff who neglected the land management of this case's claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the removal of warehouse and rent against the defendant constitutes abuse of rights as it has the intention of maliciously coercing the defendant. However, the defendant's assertion alone is the plaintiff.