1. Defendant D is the Plaintiff:

A. Of 575 square meters in Gangnam-si E, each point of which is indicated in the attached Form 47, 48, 8, 49, 46, and 47.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 23, 1983, Defendant B filed a registration of ownership transfer with respect to wood saponsing 575 square meters on the ground of Gangnam-si E, Gangnam-si, 575 square meters, and around that time, Defendant B paid 400,000 won a monthly rent to Nonparty G, who is a mountainous district, as a rent for rice, and paid 40,000 won a monthly rent to G around October 21, 2005 at the net H’s request. After the death of the network H, Defendant B paid 40,000 won to Nonparty I, who is its wife, from around 2006 to around 2012.

B. As of the closing date of the argument of this case, the buildings owned by Defendant B are identical to the purport of the claim on each land of this case.

(hereinafter “instant building 1”). C.

Defendant D paid 40,000 won a monthly rent to the above G as the owner of the building on the ground of Gangnam-si E and F, J and K (hereinafter “instant building”) and paid 300,000 won a monthly rent to the network H around October 21, 2005 at the request of the network H. After the network H died, Defendant D paid 30,000 won a monthly rent to Nonparty I, the wife, from around 206 to around 2012.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the agreement on the division of inherited property as of November 29, 2005 with respect to the 575 square meters and F forest land (hereinafter “each land of this case”) in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, E, and 917 square meters, and around June 28, 2013, sent a content-certified mail to Defendant B, which sought the removal of the building of this case, and the said mail was served on the above Defendant around that time.

E. The building No. 2 of this case is located on each land of this case as described in paragraph (1) of this case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1-2, Gap 2-2, Gap evidence 1-6, Gap 5, 6-5, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 8-1 through 8, Eul evidence 1-1-8, results of on-site verification conducted by this court, results of appraiser L's survey and appraisal, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The Defendant C’s claim for a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to Defendant C, who is not the owner of the building, against the unqualified person.