1. The Defendants are jointly and severally with the Plaintiff as to each land indicated in the separate sheet from August 7, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The instant land was originally owned by the deceased E, and Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale on February 11, 198 ( February 6, 198), and the Plaintiff purchased at the auction procedure on August 7, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name.

B. B. B before Defendant B acquired the ownership of the instant land, Defendant B owned a unregistered building on the ground of the instant land (a house of 60.62m2 on the 1st floor of the lub roof, hereinafter “instant building”) and occupied and used all the instant land.

C. The deceased E died on February 7, 1988, and the Defendants, their children, jointly inherited the deceased’s property including the instant building.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap 1-6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the land and buildings in this case were owned by the same person, and their owners were changed by sale and purchase, superficies was established according to custom for the building in this case.

Therefore, the Defendants have the right to possess and use the instant land through the ownership of the instant building.

However, even if there is legal superficies against the defendants, the defendants should pay the plaintiff reasonable land rent (land rent).

Although the Plaintiff stated in the instant complaint, etc. that the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the land rent was made, such assertion also includes the purport of seeking the payment of land rent.

B. Furthermore, according to the overall purport of the statement and argument by Gap evidence No. 6, the amount equivalent to the rent when the land of this case was leased without a deposit is recognized as KRW 515,00 per month (calculated by multiplying the appraised value of each land of this case by the expected interest rate considering the rate of national and public bonds, the level of general heavy interest, etc.).

Although the Plaintiff asserts the rent equivalent to KRW 1,400,000 per month, there is no evidence to acknowledge the excess of KRW 515,00 per month.

Therefore, the land of this case.