(a) Of 565 square meters in Echeon-si, each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

The Plaintiffs are co-owners who completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 5, 2016, E large 565 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) by one third share due to sale and purchase as of December 2, 2015, respectively.

The Defendant is the owner of 298 square meters F. F. 298 square meters adjacent to the land of this case (hereinafter “2 land of this case”). Of the land of this case, the land of this case, the Defendant owns a building of 1st floor above the ground of the land of this case (hereinafter “land of this case”) with earth bricks and string block structures on the ground of 25 square meters connected each point of 1, 23, 44 and 1.

【In light of the facts without any dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of appraiser G’s survey and appraisal, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to remove the house on the ground of this case to the plaintiffs, deliver the land of this case, and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the period of possession.

[A] The Defendant asserts that the removal of the housing units on the ground of this case was an abuse of rights when considering the size of the occupied area, damage to the Defendant due to the removal, and the interests of the Plaintiffs, etc., the Defendant’s claim to remove the housing units on the ground of this case constitutes abuse of rights. However, the mere fact that the Defendant’s claim is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs’ claim constitutes abuse of rights, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da62319, 62326, Feb. 14, 2003). Furthermore, according to the results of health appraisal by appraiser H and appraiser H as to the scope of unjust enrichment, it is recognized that annual rent per unit area (one square meter per unit area) from January 5, 2016 to January 12, 2017, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da62326, Feb. 14, 2017>