1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C is indicated by the annexed drawings on the land No. 1 listed in the annexed list No. 1, b.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

(a)a description of the grounds for and changes in the attachment of the claim;

(b) Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment on deemed as one person);

2. The fact that Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant F, and Defendant G occupy the building of reinforced concrete building No. 832 square meters in line with the list No. 1 on the land listed in the attached Table No. 1, b, c, d, and A, which are connected in order to determine the claim against Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant E, Defendant F, and Defendant G, is deemed to have been led to confession, or that the fact that the building of reinforced concrete No. 832 square meters in part of the building of reinforced concrete building No. 1 was occupied by claiming a lien is deemed to have been proven, or that the whole purport of the pleading

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff also sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, but even if a person who is not the owner of the building occupies the building, it cannot be deemed a person who occupies the site of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935, Nov. 13, 2003). This part of the claim against the said Defendants, who is the possessor of the building, is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and all of the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.