1. The Defendants removed concrete roads, cultivated products, and facilities on the ground of 896 square meters in Gyeongyang-si, Gyeongyang-si, Gyeongyang-do, the Plaintiff.

1. Around February 2014, the Plaintiff owned 224/271 shares of Do 896 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) for the Plaintiff’s 271/271 shares, and E/ 271 shares of 47/271 as to the cause of the claim. The Defendants opened a concrete path on the instant land. At present, the Defendants occupied the instant land by installing facilities on the remaining land and cultivating crops, etc. The amount equivalent to rent of KRW 1,176,00 from April 15, 2014 to May 14, 2015 is either no dispute between the parties, or by taking into account the entire purport of pleadings as a result of each commission made by this court.

According to the above facts, the Defendants, as co-owners of the instant land, have the obligation to remove concrete roads, cultivated goods, and facilities on the ground of 896 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff jointly and severally. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 972,040 won (i.e., 1,76,000 won x 224/271), the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 15, 2014 to May 14, 2015 (i.e., 1,176,000 won x 224/271) and the amount of money calculated at the rate from the day following the delivery of the application for change of claim and cause of claim as of July 1, 2015 to Oct. 28, 2015, which is the date of the instant sentencing until the day of full payment.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sought payment of the amount equivalent to the rent from April 15, 2014 to May 14, 2015 for the entire land of this case. However, the Plaintiff, who only shares 224 percent of the land of this case, can seek a return of unjust enrichment only within the scope of his/her share. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion in excess of the aforementioned amount is without merit.

2. The defendants' assertion that the defendants acquired the statute of limitations by occupying the land of this case for not less than 20 years. However, the plaintiff's claim is groundless, but the defendants' land of this case for not less than 20 years.