2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The defendant removes the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 to the plaintiff, delivers each land listed in the attached Table 2 to the plaintiff, and from August 9, 2007 to August 6, 39,000 won per month from the date the defendant delivers each land listed in the attached Table 2 to the date the defendant loses his/her ownership of the above land or from the date the plaintiff loses his/her ownership of the above land (the defendant filed a counterclaim in the first instance trial but withdrawn it at the first instance trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall remove the building listed in the attached Table 1 to the plaintiff and deliver each land listed in the attached Table 2 to the plaintiff.

Defendant: The part against Defendant in the judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

The reasoning of this court's decision is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since Article 2-2(b)(3) of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 2-2(2) of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 420 of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance) is the same as stated in the

2. The part that was resolved in the trial (the defendant's assertion of abuse of rights)

The defendant asserts that the removal of the plaintiff's building of this case and the request for delivery of the land of this case cannot be allowed because they constitute abuse of rights.

6. The Plaintiff’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment is justified, and the removal of the building of this case and the claim for delivery of land are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is without merit, and all of the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Table 1 and 2]

Judges Kang Young-ho (Presiding Judge)