The judgment below

Defendant B’s appeal concerning the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment is dismissed.

Defendant B of the lower judgment.

1. According to the judgment of the court below as to Defendant B’s appeal as to the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment among the judgment below, the Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant B for delivery of the instant building and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. The court of first instance dismissed the claim for delivery of a building among them and partly admitted the claim for return of unjust enrichment, and Defendant B appealed against the part against which the claim for return of unjust enrichment was lost. The court below accepted the appeal as to the claim for delivery of a building and accepted the claim for the part against the Plaintiff, but dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal as to the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment, and the Defendant B appealed against

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the defendant B is not disadvantageous to the above defendant, rather than the judgment of the court of first instance against which the defendant B did not appeal, and therefore the defendant B has no interest to dispute against the judgment of the court below.

The appeal by Defendant B on this part is unlawful and it is not possible to correct the deficiency.

2. Judgment of the court below on the ground of appeal by Defendant B regarding the claim for delivery of a building

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court: (a) based on the adopted evidence, found that the Plaintiff was awarded the instant real estate stated in the separate sheet of the lower judgment in the auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future on March 6, 2009; and (b) Defendant B

1.(a)

1. The fact that Defendant B occupied the part of the building indicated in paragraph 1; Defendant B brought up the aggregate of KRW 29,500,000, such as the roof-building installation works; rooftop waterproof and roof lecture works; electrical equipment works; water supply and boiler installation works; and the boiler construction; and Defendant B acknowledged the facts corresponding to the beneficial cost increased by the objective value of the building of this case.