1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The plaintiff at the first instance court removed the warehouse of this case against Defendant B, delivered the land of this case, and sought to pay unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 125,00 per month until the completion of delivery of the land, and sought to leave Defendant C from the warehouse of this case.

However, the court of the first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for removal and delivery against the Defendant B, and the claim against the Defendant C among the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants, and all of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant B was dismissed.

As the Defendants appealed, the scope of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the Plaintiff’s request for removal and delivery against Defendant B, and the claim for withdrawal against Defendant C.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The instant land was owned by F from January 27, 1987, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in March 29, 2003. The Plaintiff purchased the said land in the real estate public sale procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 30, 2015.

B. Meanwhile, the warehouse of this case was newly constructed over the land in this case and on the land in this case and on the land of 298 square meters in Jung-Eup, and Defendant B is the owner of the above land and the above warehouse (the land in this case was owned by H from June 29, 1989, and the land in this case was owned by H from May 21, 2005, I to J on June 21, 2006, and on December 11, 2012, the ownership was transferred to Defendant B in the order of December 11, 2012), and currently Defendant C occupies and uses the above warehouse.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5 (including additional numbers), Eul witness K's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B, as the owner of the warehouse of this case, occupied and used the land of this case, which is the site.

The defendant C, by occupying the warehouse of this case, interferes with the plaintiff's exercise of ownership of the land of this case.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is the warehouse of this case.