1. Defendant C:

A. The outcome of the survey on the cadastral status of the attached Form No. 833 square meters in Gyeonggi-do shall also be indicated on the ship.

1. In fact, the following facts do not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant may recognize the following facts in accordance with the entry of the evidence No. 1, the evidence No. 3-1, the result of this court’s request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

On March 2, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the gift on February 27, 2006 from E company on March 2, 2006 with respect to the land of 83 square meters (the land indicated in paragraph (1) of this case; hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

B. On June 29, 2017, the conjunctive Defendant C purchased an unregistered unauthorized building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in part 139 square meters in the ship indicating the result of the survey on the cadastral status of the instant land from among the instant land, with the previous owner.

C. The primary Defendant B, from July 2017, is operating a restaurant with the trade name “F” in the above building with the permission of Defendant C, a child from around July 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, and the result of this court's request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, on the ground that Defendant B occupied the instant land as the owner of the instant building without title, Defendant B is obligated to remove the instant building, deliver the land, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land.

B. 1) Determination 1) In the event a building constructed on another’s land is unregistered and the ownership of the building is infringed on by that building, the obligation to remove the building is a person who is in the position to legally and practically dispose of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu1751, Dec. 23, 1986; 91Da11278, Jun. 11, 1991). Since a person who purchased the building of this case is the defendant C, a person who is legally and practically entitled to dispose of the building is not the defendant C. 2).