1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is recorded in the attached list

1. On July 26, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer is completed on September 12, 2014 with respect to land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On April 22, 2015, the Defendant indicated in the separate sheet.

2. A building acquired by auction (hereinafter “instant building”) and used it as a factory. On October 2016, the said building was destroyed or lost.

C. By October 2016, the instant building was invaded with the instant land equivalent to 17 square meters in the place of the ship, which connects each point of Annex 1 drawings No. 27, 28, 29, 30, and 27 with each point of Annex 1, and the Defendant, up to that time, has occupied and used part 1,00 square meters in the ship, which connects each point of Annex 2 drawings No. 31, 17, 18, 33, 32, and 31.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 1, and video (including paper numbers), the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by party appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the Plaintiff’s request for removal of the building and delivery of land is to seek removal of the part of the instant building and delivery of the said part of the site by asserting that the instant building was partially invaded and that the Defendant occupied the site of the building.

However, as seen earlier, as of the date of closing argument of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of the building is without merit.

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the Plaintiff’s fee

A. According to the above facts, by October 2015, the Defendant occupied and used part 28 square meters inside the instant building site, which is part of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, as part of the instant land, and occupied and used as part of the instant building site, and incurred profit equivalent to the rent for the said part, and incurred damages equivalent to the Plaintiff in the same amount. Thus, the Defendant should return the said unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

B. We examine the above amount of unjust enrichment.