1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of E and F as to the two-story stores and housing 1st floor, 63.68 square meters, 2nd floor 63.68 square meters, and 1/2 of 2nd floor 63.68 square meters, in the name of E and F, in netcheon-si.

B. On December 26, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on December 26, 2017 with respect to the cement block structure 21.4 square meters among the instant buildings of 186 square meters, 186 square meters and 186 square meters and 21.3 square meters among the instant buildings.

C. Meanwhile, among the two-story buildings of 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 2, an I restaurant is located on the part B in the ship connected each point of which is indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 2, 3, 9, 10, and 2, among the buildings of 2, 3, 3, 10, and 36.4 square meters, and an I restaurant is located on the part B in the ship connected each point of which is indicated in the same drawing Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 49.9 square meters in the ship connected each point of 49.9 square meters in the ship, 49.9 square meters in the ship, which are connected each point of 49.9 square meters in the ship (hereinafter referred to as “the building of this case”). The building of this case” is operated and occupied by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2 and 9-1, the result of the appraisal by this court to the appraiser J, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff and E share the instant building at the ratio of 21.4:63, and that the Plaintiff and E owned the instant building and sought delivery of the instant building and return of unjust enrichment by asserting that they occupied the instant building by the Defendant.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not the owner of the building of this case, and even if the plaintiff is the co-owner of the building of this case, the defendant concluded a lease agreement with E, a majority of share holders, and thus, the defendant has a legitimate right to occupy the building of this case.

B. Determination is based on the current status of the building in this case, the building stated in the registry (No. 9-1) where the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff and the building in this case.