(a) remove all the buildings on the B large-scale land of 185 square meters in Naju, and the above land;

A. On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of B large-scale 185 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) through an auction procedure.

B. From around 1977, the Defendant owned a building (house and warehouse) on the ground of the instant land.

C. The sum of the rent from March 29, 2016 to June 27, 2016, from March 2016, is KRW 31,270, and the rent from the next day to June is KRW 10,480 per month.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3; the result of the commission of appraisal to the Japanese appraisal corporation (Appraiser: C); the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the facts of determination as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant is recognized to possess the land by owning a building on the ground of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and thereby obtain unjust enrichment, which is equivalent to the rent for the said land.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the above building to the plaintiff, deliver the above land, and pay unjust enrichment of 31,270 won from March 29, 2016 to June 27, 2016, as well as delayed damages of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from June 28, 2016 to June 27, 2016 (the date of Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership) and damages for delay (the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of the delivery of the above land) and to pay unjust enrichment of 10,480 won per month from June 28, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the above land.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the previous owner of the instant land has the right to occupy the said land, as he/she has leased the said land and paid the rent thereof.

However, even if the defendant concluded an agreement with the existing owner of the land in this case on the use of the land in this case, there is no ground to believe that the agreement can be asserted against the plaintiff as the new owner of the land in this case.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant shall in 2013.