2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

1. The fact of recognition (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20050, Aug. 16, 2005) (2. 12) (D large 1,755 square meters (oil) E large 1,339 square meters (oil) E large 1,303 square meters (oil) E large 3,094 square meters (oil), 1,303 square meters (oil), E large 4,397 square meters (oil) E large 3,889 square meters (oil), and 508 square meters (oil) G large 508 square meters (oil)

A. The process of annexation and division of the real estate listed in Paragraph 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in the attached list is as follows:

(A) The term "Asan City Cri" is stated only as "Criri". (b)

Attached Form

In the list, the real estate listed in paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) was located on the land of F. F. 1,303 square meters before the merger.

On September 30, 2005, the general building ledger was newly prepared on the ground of the application for entry as to the building of this case, and the defendant completed registration of initial ownership in the name of the defendant as to the building of this case on the same day.

C. The instant building site was the instant land after the merger as of February 12, 2016 and the division as of March 25, 2016, but the copy of the real estate register and the general building ledger concerning the instant building were written in F, which is the previous lot number.

The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from H on June 20, 2016, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on June 27, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4, and 6 evidence (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff owned the instant building on the ground of the instant land, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land, and taking unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the said building site out of the instant land.

Therefore, the Defendant removed the instant building to the Plaintiff, delivered the instant building site among the instant land, and returned unjust enrichment from June 20, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the part of the instant building site among the instant land.