1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the land size of 482 m2 in Gyeong-si, each point of the attached Form No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 11 shall be in order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 21, 2005 with respect to the land size of 3, 861 square meters in Dongdaemun-si prior to the subdivision.

On August 17, 2007, the above land was divided into three hundred and forty-eight square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and three hundred and seventy-eight square meters (379 square meters).

B. The Defendant’s mother, on October 5, 1989, purchased a single-story house on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed registration of ownership preservation on December 31, 2007.

On June 12, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant through F and G.

C. The location and size of the instant building on the ground of the instant land and the toilets, which are its accessory buildings, are identical to that indicated in the attached Form. The monthly rent after June 12, 2014 of the instant land that the Defendant occupied and used as the site of the instant building is equivalent to KRW 60,250.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 5 (including each number), the result of the survey and appraisal of appraiser H, the result of the entrustment of appraisal of rent to appraiser I, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, inasmuch as the Defendant did not have the right to occupy and use the instant land, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and toilets and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, and also to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the occupation and use of the instant land.

The defendant asserts that the land of this case was entitled to occupy the land of this case since he paid the land rent every year to J, the former owner of the land of this case, and paid or deposited the land rent of 50% increased compared to the previous land after the plaintiff purchased the land.

However, even if the instant building was unregistered and entered into a lease agreement with the former owner of the instant land, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff. Moreover, solely on the grounds alleged by the Defendant, the lease agreement on the instant land was concluded explicitly or implicitly between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.