1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer with respect to each of the 1/2 shares in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F large 56 square meters (hereinafter “1 land”), G large 24 square meters (hereinafter “No. 2”), Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H large 30 square meters (hereinafter “third land”), Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I large 38 square meters (hereinafter “No. 4”), and the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J large 23 square meters (hereinafter “No. 5”), respectively, (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

B. The Defendants of neighboring real estate are owners of land and ground buildings adjacent to each of the instant land. At present, the lessee who entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants uses each of the above ground buildings as commercial buildings, and there are lots and tents for the business of commercial buildings in part of each of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 7, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 2, the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to K of appraiser, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant A occupied and used the land No. 1, Defendant C’s land No. 2, Defendant C’s land No. 3, Defendant D’s land No. 4, and Defendant E’s land No. 5 from around 1992 to the present date without permission. The Defendants are obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount of each claim stated in the Plaintiff’s claim as unjust enrichment for ten years from June 14, 2004 to June 13, 2014.

3. The reasoning of the judgment is as follows: (a) Nos. 5, 6, and 8; (b) the images of the evidence No. 2; and (c) the result of the survey and appraisal commission with respect to appraiser K, it is difficult to acknowledge the facts of occupying each of the instant land; and (c) there is no other evidence to

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7, the defendants are each owned building adjacent to each of the lands of this case.