1. The defendant

A. Of the 31,934 square meters of C Forest land in Pakistan, each point of the attached Form 40, 41, 42, 43, and 40 shall be indicated.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 28, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to C forest land 31,934 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and owns it.

B. Part of the instant building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) is located above the size of 93 square meters (hereinafter “the key part of the instant building”) connected to each point of 40,41,42,43, and 40 of the instant land in sequence, among the instant land.

C. On September 28, 2018 and September 11, 2020, the pertinent key issue portion is KRW 175,500,00.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of this court's request for measurement and appraisal of the ordering branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation, and the result of the court's entrustment for appraisal of fees to D appraiser offices of this court

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant without authority owned part of the building of this case to the main issue of this case and occupied part of the building of this case, thereby hindering the exercise of the plaintiff's ownership, gaining profits equivalent to the rent of the same part without any legal ground, and causing damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the part of the instant building located in the instant part, deliver the land of the instant part to the Plaintiff, and return the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 175,500 per year from September 28, 2019 to the date of completion of removal and delivery, which the Plaintiff acquired ownership, to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the building of this case has been live in peace for 11 years with knowledge that it did not intrude the land of this case, and thus, even if the plaintiff is obligated to pay usage fees, the building cannot be demolished. However, there is no evidence supporting such argument by the defendant, and even if the defendant asserts, such fact alone is acknowledged.