A. Of the 13,833 square meters of forest land B in Gyeyang-gu, Goyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, the annexed drawing No. 44 through 216, and 44 shall be respectively indicated.

A. As to the portion of 7,693/13,833 square meters of forests and fields B 13,833 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”), the Plaintiff Handong-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) acquired ownership by public sale on July 23, 2012 as to the portion of 3,297/13,83 of the instant forest and fields, and the Plaintiff A acquired ownership by public sale on July 23, 2012.

B. The Defendant, among the forest land of this case, installs military installations, such as air defense, fire protection, personal protection, traffic heading, sand heading, and stairs, connected to each point of 44 through 216, and 44 square meters in line (hereinafter “the part”), and occupies and uses the part of item (a) on the part of 731 square meters in line with each point of the annexed drawing.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 2 and 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (1) According to the facts of recognition of the defendant's removal, removal, delivery, and obligation to return unjust enrichment, the defendant is obligated to remove or remove military installations installed in the part (a) and deliver the part to the plaintiffs who seek removal and delivery as an act of preserving the jointly owned property.

In addition, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is judged to gain a benefit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the item (a) and thereby, to inflict damages equivalent to the same amount on the plaintiffs who are the owners. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, unless there are special circumstances.

The plaintiffs claim that part 275 square meters in the annexed drawing (c) of the forest of this case is owned by the defendant, and that part 107 square meters in part (d), 107 square meters in part (e), and 6 square meters in part (e) of the forest of this case shall also be paid with unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the delivery of the above part and the above part. However, the plaintiffs

(2) There is no dispute between the parties to calculate the rent on the portion of (a) the return of unjust enrichment by applying the rate of 2.5% to the officially announced value of the forest of this case pursuant to Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act.