1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 456 m2 and 235 m2 in Kimpo-si, the annexed drawings A, B, C, c, D, e, f, g, h, i.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In light of the fact that there is no dispute between the parties concerned over the facts of recognition, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 4-1 through Eul evidence 4-6, Eul's cadastral survey appraisal result, and appraiser Eul's cadastral survey appraisal result, ① on August 31, 2015 through voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter "C land") and D large 235 square meters (hereinafter "D land") and D large 235 square meters (hereinafter "D land"), ② the defendant owned the building mentioned in Eul evidence 1-2 (hereinafter "the building of this case"), ③ the land of this case as the site of the building of this case, and the land of D was used as the site of the building of this case.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant owned the building of this case on the land of this case, and occupied the land of this case, which is the land of this case, and thereby gains profit equivalent to the profit from the land of this case and thereby causes damage equivalent to the plaintiff's equivalent amount.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to remove the building of this case and return the profit equivalent to the profit from the use of the land of this case to unjust enrichment.

(However, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of evidence No. 3 alone is making use of and benefit from the part other than the part on which the building of this case exists on the land of this case on the land of this case, and since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, this court urged this part of the evidence through the order to prepare for seat on March 20, 2017, and exercised the right to request seat on May 12, 2017 at the fourth date for pleading. The plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment on February 2, 2017 is without merit).

A. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant acquired legal superficies against the land of this case, the defendant has the right to possess them.

B. The facts of recognition are examined as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 to 3.