1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 28, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”) due to the sale by voluntary auction on January 28, 2008.

B. Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Gahap102993, etc. 1) The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on June 3, 2013 by asserting that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land without permission from January 28, 2008 to April 5, 2012. On October 11, 2013, the part of the claim for unjust enrichment corresponding to the size of 6,364 square meters among the instant land, which was partly favorable, was dismissed. The part of the claim for unjust enrichment corresponding to the size of 1,304 square meters, including the part where the other container was installed, was cited. (The Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2013Gahap10293, 2013). However, the appellate court revoked the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment from 204 square meters to 204 square meters of the instant land, which was finally revoked by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment from 2014.

(The calculation of the amount of profit and damages for delay in the first instance was corrected).

(Seoul High Court 2013Na2025437). The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed on June 26, 2014, and the above appellate judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the argument 1) The Plaintiff’s husband died on the land of this case in around 2002, which was the Plaintiff’s husband, and the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said building, but the Defendant’s compulsory execution on April 5, 2012 (Tgu District Court Kimcheon Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court).