1. From September 24, 2010 to September 24, 2010, the Defendant indicated the attached Form 13, 11, 12, and 13 among the real estate listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the attached list 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the real estate listed in the attached list 3, 4, and 5 adjacent thereto (hereinafter “instant building site”) and the real estate listed in the attached list 6 on the ground of the instant building site (hereinafter “instant building”) were owned by the new industry for the first time.

The building of this case was constructed on October 21, 1997 on the site of the building of this case by the new industry, and was commenced on or around December 1, 1998 after obtaining permission for construction, and completed registration of ownership preservation on or after July 22, 1999 after obtaining approval for use.

B. On May 31, 199, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation's voluntary auction procedure for real estate established on the basis of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) of the land of this case was awarded the land of this case on September 6, 2001, and the plaintiff (the previous mutual mobilization panel Co., Ltd.) acquired the ownership by winning the bid at the above auction procedure on January 25, 2006 at the end of the voluntary auction procedure for real estate again.

C. On September 24, 2010, the Defendant acquired ownership by winning a successful bid for the instant building in a voluntary auction procedure.

On the other hand, part of the building of this case, from the time of the above construction, was built with the area of 7 square meters and 1 square meters in part (f) as stated in the claim of this case, which is part of the land of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the part of the fleet removal, India and the return of unjust enrichment is possessing the fleet on the ground as stated in the claim(a), (b), and (i) the part on the ground as stated in the claim(s). The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant occupied the part of the land, and sought the removal of the fleet, delivery of the part of the land, and return of unjust enrichment.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant owned the chemical team as above and possessed the land in that part, and thus, the plaintiff's claim on this premise should be examined further.