1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants remove 2 real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant B, C, and D are gold 28,584.

1. The following facts do not conflict with us, or can be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, and Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the examination of the rent by this court against F, and there is no counter-proof.

On August 28, 1996, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for one real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On May 28, 1986, Nonparty G completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 2 real estate listed in the attached list on the instant land surface (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. Nonparty E died on June 22, 2003, and Defendant E, his spouse, succeeded to 3/9 shares, Defendant B, C, and D’s shares, respectively.

The annual rent from October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006 of the instant land is KRW 13,549,800; annual rent from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 201 is KRW 13,934,50; annual rent from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016 is KRW 14,760,90; and the annual rent from May 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 is KRW 2,471,650 (the annual rent from October 1, 2014, X 400 to September 30, 2016).

E. The officially announced land price of the instant land was either 470,000,000 or larger every year in 2005, and became 590,000,000 square meters in 201 and 2011, and 620,000,000 square meters in 205.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants, as co-owners who own the instant building inherited from Non-Party G, possess the instant land, which is the site of the instant building, due to their possession of the instant building. As such, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, has the duty to remove the instant building with the duty to eliminate interference based on ownership. 2) Since the judgment on the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land, the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.