All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) became a sole owner of the instant land by completing the registration of ownership transfer based on a settlement recommendation decision as of January 23, 2018, No. 7577, which was received on January 11, 2019, with respect to the shares of other co-owners among the instant land.

(2) On June 2006, the Defendants cut the land in the instant case from among the instant land without permission and laid down a fume fume (hereinafter “the instant fume”) with a diameter of 600 meters in diameter for the use of sewage pipes on the ground, and began to possess and use the instant fume by packaging concrete on the ground.

(3) Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to remove the instant fume and concrete packaging on the ground, which was established on the ground of the instant dispute without title, and deliver the instant dispute land to the Plaintiff. The Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the amount of money as stated in paragraphs (3) and (4) with the performance of the duty to return unjust enrichment due to the possession and use of the instant dispute land.

B. (1) In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendants cannot be deemed to possess the land subject to the dispute of this case, taking into account whether the Defendants occupied the land subject to the dispute of this case, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 9 (including the number of branches in the case of additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 18, and Eul evidence No. 1 to 18, and the entire purport of the pleadings as a result of the reply to the submission of documents against the time of

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion related to the request for removal of fume of this case and concrete packaging on the ground of the land in this case, which is laid underground on the land in this case, and the request for delivery of the land in this case is without merit.

① First of all, even based on all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendants, in particular, Defendant B cut the land in the dispute of this case without permission, and laid down fume on the underground, and concrete packaging on the ground of the dispute of this case is not possible, and otherwise recognized.