2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1) The Defendant alleged that “The owner of D land and the container of this case has no obligation to deliver D land and remove the container of this case” 2) The Defendant asserted that “The owner of D land and the container of this case has no obligation to deliver D land and remove the container of this case.” According to the overall purport of the evidence No. 19, Gap evidence No. 18, and Gap evidence No. 18, the Defendant used the container of this case as a church warehouse. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the claim for cancellation of the adjudication of expropriation. In the above lawsuit, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the claim that the container of this case contains the container of this case [the (1) floor)] as stated in the three pages of the [Attachment No. 19] list No. 2 attached Form No. 3 attached to the copy of the complaint No. 19, the "S. 15*6] list No. 4 attached Form No. 4 (246).

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the instant container is owned by the Defendant. Since the Defendant occupies the instant land by installing and using the instant container on the instant land, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant container to the Plaintiff and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. On the Defendant’s argument regarding the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, the Defendant: (a) occupied the land indicated in the [Attachment 1] list as the owner; (b) the Plaintiff acquired ownership of each land listed in the [Attachment 1] as the Plaintiff was forced to accept due to the implementation of public works; and (c) the Defendant