beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants emphasized or added “as of April 21, 201,” the fourth 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “as of April 21, 201”; and (b) the following additional determination is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (c) such assertion is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. At the time when the Defendants asserted by the Defendants possessed the instant L site and its ground buildings, approximately 4 square meters of the land in the instant dispute, but the remaining 2/3 of the land possessed by the Defendants remains vacant lots. However, the air space was destroyed by the wind that illegally expands the main part of the 1st floor restaurant around 2013 to the wall.
Therefore, it is unreasonable to calculate unjust enrichment on the premise that the Defendants occupied the entire land in the dispute of this case. The Defendants are obligated to return only unjust enrichment on the land in the dispute of this case to the Plaintiff.
B. Determination of Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 7-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 11-1, 12-1, and 2, respectively, and the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole. In other words, the defendant G appeared as witness in the lawsuit for removal of buildings, etc. filed by the plaintiff against N, and there was a space inside 1m wide between the house of this case and the wall of this case, and it appears that Eul occupied the above space due to such structural change, and N appears to have occupied the above space by making a door connected with the main bank around 1987, and N claimed the possession area of the net M&, the former owner of N in the above lawsuit, and the defendant's possession area by specifying the possession area of the above space. In light of the same area of the land of this case, the defendants occupied the whole M&T and the aforementioned area of the land of this case.