1. The Defendants each Plaintiff:

(a) KRW 3,549,00 and for this, 5% per annum from May 30, 2017 to July 7, 2017;

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who acquired ownership of the land listed in the annexed Form 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") according to the decision to commence voluntary auction in Daegu District Court E voluntary auction case (hereinafter referred to as the "voluntary auction case of this case"). The defendants are the successors of the non-party netF, who are the former owners of the land of this case, and are the owners of the buildings listed in the annexed Form (2) on the ground of the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case"), and currently occupy the building of this case.

B. The above F acquired the ownership of the land of this case on December 21, 1970 and around July 18, 1991, among the land of this case.

1. On the land, the Sejong mentor and the branch of a multi-story restaurant 110.94 square meters on the land, shall be newly constructed as a multi-story house, 83.2 square meters on the land, and the registration of preservation shall be completed after construction of a multi-story 83.2 square meters on the land, and the registration of preservation shall be completed.

C. On February 1, 2013, the above F is against the land of this case to the Non-Party Daegu Credit Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Dongdong Credit Union").

The right to collateral security (the right to collateral security) was established on the building stated in the claim, and the same credit union filed an application for voluntary auction of this case around June 2015, as the above F did not repay the collateral security debt.

In the procedure of voluntary auction of this case,

The building stated in the port is presumed to have been destroyed because it is not recognized as identical to the building of this case, and therefore, the Eastern Union voluntarily withdrawn the application for auction against the building of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute and entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 and Eul evidence 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land, constructed the instant building on the instant land without any title, and occupied the instant land, should remove the instant building around the Plaintiff, deliver the site thereof, and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment on the lavy party from January 8, 2016 to the completion date of removal and delivery.