1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of 1/6 shares by inheritance on July 27, 2005 with respect to the land of this case with respect to 26 square meters in Sinsi-si E (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs’ land”).

B. The Defendant newly constructed a 4-story building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of 83 square meters in Sinsi-si, Seoul (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) adjacent to the instant land, as shown in attached Form 1, and completed registration of initial ownership on October 29, 1983.

Of the instant buildings, the right-hand column part of the instant building is located on the ground of one square meter in the part “A” connected in order to each point of Appendix 1, 2, 6, and 1 among the instant Plaintiffs’ land (hereinafter “instant dispute land”).

C. The amount equivalent to the rent for the land involved in the instant dispute shall be KRW 1,52,317 in total from September 15, 2005 to December 31, 2014 [=49,067 won (=165,830 won x 108/365 days x less than won; hereinafter the same shall apply];

() From January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014, the sum equivalent to the rent is KRW 1,503,250, and from January 1, 2015, it is the amount calculated by converting the amount equivalent to the rent from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 200 [the amount equivalent to the rent from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015] KRW 86,39,000 per year. (Calculation Form 86,399 x 365/181).

【Fact- without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Gap’s evidence 8-4, Gap’s evidence 10, Eul’s evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, by June 30, 2015, obtained profits from the land in the instant dispute while occupying and using the land in the instant dispute until June 30, 2015, and thereby, thereby causing damages equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the profits from the use of the land in the dispute of this case to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned, within the scope of the amount equivalent to the rent corresponding to the period of possession of the land in the dispute of this case (from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2015) by the Defendant.