1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the land size of 192.4 square meters in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, each of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 17, 16, 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 22, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land owned by the Plaintiff, Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, 192.4 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”).

B. On April 9, 1974, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D land in Jung-gu Seoul and its third floor buildings.

C. Around 2010, the Defendant illegally extended the part of the 10th floor among the above 3th floor buildings and installed the 4.1 square meters of the 4.1 square meters of the 1st floor and the 4.1 square meters of the 2nd floor on the land (hereinafter “instant land”) connected each point of the 1,2,3,4, 18, 17, 16, and 1, among the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff, at the location of the 4.1 square meters of the 1st floor and the 4.1 square meters of the 2nd floor building (hereinafter “instant building”).

The rent from January 1, 2018 on the instant land is KRW 66,092 per month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6 evidence (including additional number), the result of this court's request for surveying appraisal and supplementary appraisal to the Seoul Vice-Governor of the Seoul Vice-Governor of the Korea Land and Information Corporation, the result of appraiser E's replacement appraisal, the fact inquiry results against the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, has the duty to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff seeking the removal of interference.

In addition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 66,092 per month corresponding to the rent to the unjust enrichment from January 1, 2018 to the day the delivery of the instant land is completed, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. As to the Defendant’s claim on the one-time prescription for the acquisition of possession, the Defendant asserted that the prescription period for the acquisition of possession of the instant land has expired since 1974, since since then since 1974, since the Defendant occupied the instant land in peace and openly with the intent to own the instant land.

The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is that of this case from around 1974.