1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

A. Of the land size of 178 square meters in Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun G, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, the land size of attached Table 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 5, 6, 7.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 1981, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed registration of the preservation of ownership with respect to the land of 178 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On August 22, 1981, the deceased H (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of preservation of ownership with respect to the 145 square meters adjacent to the instant land, Ha-dong, Ha-dong, Ha-dong, Ha-dong. On December 7, 2001, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed with respect to the house for single-story farming on the roof of the wood slate of the ground (hereinafter “instant house”). Some of the instant houses are constructed on the land adjacent to the affected part of the instant house.

C. On September 10, 2006, the Deceased died, and the Defendants jointly inherited the Deceased, such as the entry in the final inheritance share sheet in attached Form 2.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 or 5 evidence, the result of the appraiser J's appraisal, the result of the on-site verification by this court, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The duty of the co-inheritors to remove the building is an indivisible obligation in its nature, and each co-inheritors is obliged to remove the building within the limits of their respective shares.

(See Supreme Court Decision 80Da756 delivered on June 24, 1980). According to the above facts, the Defendants owned each share indicated in the “final Inheritance Shares column” in the attached Table 2 of the inheritance shares of the instant housing from the Deceased, thereby occupying and using the land owned by the Plaintiff as the site, thereby hindering the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership of the instant land.

Therefore, the Defendants should remove the instant housing located on the land in the part of the said offense within the limit of their shares in inheritance, and deliver this part of the land to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the above facts, the part concerning the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is determined as to the plaintiff's claim. The defendants occupied the part of the violation of this case's land, thereby gaining profits from the use of the land, and causing damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.