1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall remove the plastic houses listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and the number stated in the same list.

If the purport of the entire argument is added to each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), it is recognized that the plaintiff owns the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case"), Defendant B established and occupied a vinyl house listed in the same list on the land listed in the annexed sheet Nos. 1, around around 2015, and planted trees listed in the same list on the above land; Defendant C opened and occupied a vinyl house on the land listed in the same list on the land listed in the annexed sheet Nos. 2, around around 2016; and Defendant C planted trees listed in the same list on the above land.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, Defendant B, as the owner of each of the instant lands, has the duty to remove the plastic houses listed in the separate sheet No. 1, collect the trees recorded in the same list, deliver the land indicated in the same list, and return the profits equivalent to the profits from the use of the said land in unjust enrichment. Defendant C, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, remove the plastic houses, collect the trees listed in the same list, transfer the land indicated in the same list, and return the profits from the use of the said land in unjust

With respect to the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendants, barring any special circumstance, the ordinary damages suffered by the landowners by occupying another’s land without legal title shall be equivalent to the rent for the land in possession (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da51539, Jun. 28, 1994). According to the result of the commission of appraisal of rent for the D previously North Korea Branch Co., Ltd. of this court, the Plaintiff sought from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017, which is close to the date of the closing of argument in this case, was 3,356,300, and the sum of rent for the land above on December 31, 2017, was 3,356,300, and the rent for the land above on December 31, 2017, the fact that the Plaintiff was 98,580, and the Plaintiff.