1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Decision 1 of the court of first instance is delivered.

1. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the delivery of the building and the return of unjust enrichment, and the preliminary claim for the removal of the building. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim and accepted the preliminary claim.

The scope of the trial of this court is limited to the above conjunctive claim, since only the defendant B appealed.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (except for the part concerning the conclusion) except for the following modifications or additional determinations, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The amended part of the first instance court's decision which revises the 5th part of the 5th instance court's decision, and the 5th part of the 5th part's 4th part "M" as "N", respectively.

B. Additional part 1) Of the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant B did not have any possession of the parts of the building Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Defendant B did not have any obligation to deliver the said parts to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B did not have any obligation to return unjust enrichment from possession of the said parts. In full view of the following purport of the evidence Nos. 7, 15, 19, and 2, the execution officerO executed the provisional disposition on the parts of the building Nos. 1, 2, and 3, which were issued on March 13, 2016 in the name of title, the execution officer entered the lease agreement No. 1, 2, and 25:23 on March 13, 2016 in the name of title, and the phone number, trade name and address of the Defendant (the pertinent building No. 1, 2013) in the name of the Plaintiff.