A. Of the land of 248 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Seoul, the attached appraisal map is marked 1, 2, 3, 8, 7, 6, 6.

A. On December 22, 1972, the net G purchased a F-248 square meters worth 248 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On February 2, 2001, the net G donated the respective 1/2 shares of the instant land to Plaintiff D and the net H on February 2, 2001.

B. The deceased on November 26, 2007 and the deceased on November 26, 2007, the deceased Plaintiff D, his spouse, succeeded to the 3/18 shares of the instant land (a total of 12/18 shares to the above donation shares) and the 2/18 shares of Plaintiff A, B, and C, who are the children of the deceased H, respectively.

C. On July 25, 1990, the net I entered a building on the instant land in the building ledger by specifying it as “a wooden cement machine, a branch roof, 47.01 square meters,” and completed registration of preservation of ownership. D.

The current status of the building on the ground of the instant land is as follows: (a) the aggregate of 242 square meters in the area of the reticulator of the cement tank, cross-story, and the facilities located on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) connected each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 8, 7, 6, and 1 in sequence with each point of the attached Table No. 1,2

E. On June 3, 2011, the Network I sold the instant building to J, and the J sold the said building again to the Defendant on March 26, 2015.

F. The Defendant’s total rent from March 26, 2015 to June 30, 2016, is KRW 11,773,800, and the average monthly rent from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 is KRW 778,900 (i.e., the total rent of KRW 9,346,90, 12 months, and less than KRW 10).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 2, and the result of each appraisal commission to the higher branch office and K appraiser's office of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant owned the building of this case on the ground of the land owned by the plaintiffs and occupied and used the above land. Thus, the plaintiffs removed the building of this case and deliver the above land to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment acquired by using the land of this case.