A. Each point is indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 7, 4, 5, 6, and 1 on the ground of 324 square meters in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do.

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 21, 2006 with respect to each of the instant lands (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) of 34m2, 344m2, 1957m2, 324m2, 387m2, and 387m2, both of which were located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do.

B. The Defendant newly constructed a house and a provisional building (hereinafter “instant building”) on each ground of Gyeonggi-gu D and C, as described in the order, and used and profit-making each of the instant land as the site and storage for the instant building.

C. Monthly rent for each of the instant lands is KRW 1,146,000 per April 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 5 (including partial numbers), appraiser G, and H, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building to the Plaintiff, the owner of each of the instant land, and deliver each of the instant land to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances, and to pay the amount at the rate of KRW 1,146,00 per month as unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 11, 2014 to the date of delivery of each of the instant land, as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that not only the building of this case but all the land of this case were entitled to possess each of the land of this case by asserting that they are owned by the defendant, and therefore, the land of this case is owned by the plaintiff, as recognized earlier. The mere fact that the building of this case is owned by the defendant does not necessarily mean that the defendant has the right to possess each of the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has a legitimate right to possess each of the land of this case. Thus, the above argument

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s respective claims of this case are with merit, and all of them are accepted.