1. The defendant removes each of the buildings indicated in the annexed Form C and D on the ground of the land indicated in the annexed list to the plaintiff, and the above buildings are removed.

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the removal of the building and the claim for delivery of the land, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4-1 through 6, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the land in this case") on January 28, 2005 due to compulsory sale on the ground of December 28, 2004, and there is the building listed in the separate sheet Nos. C and D (hereinafter "the building in this case") on the land in this case, and the defendant did not appear to have completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land in this case which was owned by the non-party E (hereinafter "the building in this case Nos. C and D") on June 24, 2010 as to the land in this case as to the land in this case, which was owned by the non-party Nos. 1, 165 square meters as to the land in this case.

According to the above facts, the defendant, as the owner of the building C and D in this case, has a duty to remove each of the building C and D in this case and deliver the land in this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 300,000 per month from June 15, 2010, which the Defendant acquired ownership of the instant building. However, each description of evidence Nos. 5 and 6 alone is insufficient to deem that the monthly rent of the instant land is equivalent to KRW 300,00 per month from June 15, 2010 until the closing date of argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The Plaintiff had been given the opportunity to submit evidence regarding monthly rent of the instant land from the date of first pleading. However, on April 16, 2019, only the above Gap submitted evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the Plaintiff filed an application for examination of evidence, such as an application for market price assessment, during the period of pleading over six occasions.