1. The Defendants are indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 24, 25, 26, and 24 among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of D land at the time of leisure in the south of Korea, and the said land was subsequently merged with the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). B.

The Defendants also owned a unregistered building on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) as a person sharing the land specified in attached Table 2, attached Table 1/2, adjacent to the instant land in proportion to each share.

C. However, among the instant buildings, part of the instant building is built by breaking up three square meters in part (c) inside a ship (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant part”) connected each point of the following: (a) the indication of one square meter and one square meter in order to connect each point of the items indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 24, 25, 26, and 24 among the instant land; and (b) the indication of 27,28, 29, 30, 10, and 27 of the same drawing.

[Recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the result of the request for measurement and appraisal to the branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the factual basis prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendants, as co-owners of the instant building, possess without authority the part of the instant crime out of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to remove the building on the ground of the instant crime part and deliver the relevant part of the land.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sought that the Defendants pay the land rent of KRW 1,00,000 per month as unjust enrichment by the completion date of delivery of the part of the instant crime. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the monthly rent equivalent to the said part of the crime was KRW 1,00,000,000, and there was no other data on this issue. Therefore, the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is rejected.

B. The Defendants asserted that the request of the Plaintiff for removal constituted an abuse of rights, but the grounds alleged by the Defendants alone constitute the Plaintiff’s ownership.