1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 9,521 square meters of forest land B in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, the attached appraisal marks 23, 24, 25, 22, and 23 shall be respectively indicated.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. On December 24, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 9,521 square meters of land B in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Incheon. Before that time, the Defendant occupied the ownership of the land equivalent to unjust enrichment of the portion (A) of the building without permission (hereinafter “instant building”) 64 square meters of the attached Table No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 23, and 214 square meters of land among the above land (hereinafter “the instant land”).

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the result of appraiser D's survey appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, is obligated to remove the instant building, deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, and pay unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 41,54,123, and KRW 434,84, in proportion to the rent equivalent to the rent from December 24, 2009 to December 24, 2016, as sought by the Plaintiff, from December 25, 2016 to December 25, 2016.

2. As to the defendant's argument

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s former owner consented to the use of the land, and the effect of the Plaintiff’s consent is succeeded to. 2) The Plaintiff, as an executor under the Urban Development Act, must pre-compensation for housing relocation expenses by applying mutatis mutandis the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works as an executor under the Urban Development Act. This case is only a subject of administrative litigation

B. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s former owner consented to the use of the land solely with the statement of the certificate of No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff consented to the use of the land.