1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Facts of premise;

A. On March 2015, the Plaintiff et al. purchased each sectional owner or resident of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (see attached Form), and the Defendant purchased the house adjacent to the Carryover on or around March 1, 2015, and removed the existing house by contract with D on October 1, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with an investigative agency on the grounds that the Defendant destroyed the fireproof Group, the front door door door door door door, and the front door door door door door, and the investigative agency charged the Defendant with summary indictment on the grounds that the Defendant destroyed the above fireproof Group, the entrance door, and the front door door 30 seats.

C. As to this, the Defendant filed a request for formal trial (this Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2422), and the facts charged changed to the effect that “F” appears to be a clerical error in the “F” of 15-1 (business registration certificate) of the CF owner’s joint ownership, the entrance and exit door, and E No. 15 (business registration certificate). The number of proxy seat owned was damaged by 30.”

On July 5, 2017, this Court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged above on the ground that “the removal of an existing wall, which is indispensable to remove or damage the Dagra and the entrance part, was damaged, and the substitute seat was partially damaged, but it cannot be readily concluded that there was a criminal intent to commit property damage.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 6 (including more than one number), Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the land rent in accordance with the respective share ratio to G, H, I, J, K, and L, as the Plaintiff occupied 17 square meters or more of the land borrowed from C, for construction during the construction period of the new building (from September 30, 2015 to August 10, 2016) for the purpose of the construction of the new building.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant, the owner of the building, occupied and used the CBD site during the period of the Plaintiff’s assertion, solely with the images of each photograph Nos. 2, 7, and 12 (including these numbers). There is no other evidence.