1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 9,521m2 in Incheon Gyeyang-gu, the attached survey appraisal report on the attached Form No. 1,2,3,4,5,5,6,7,8, among the land of Gyeyang-gu, Incheon.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. On December 24, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 9,521 square meters of land in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon. 2) The Defendant, prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership, builds the part of the land at which the Plaintiff successively connected each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, and 79 square meters of land attached to the above 9,521 square meters of land (hereinafter “the instant forest”) and owns the said forest land (hereinafter “the instant forest”).

3) The rent of the instant forest from December 24, 2009 to June 10, 2016 is KRW 14,307,400, and the rent of June 10, 2016, which is close to the date of the closing of argument, is KRW 160,528. [The grounds for recognition, each entry of evidence A No. 1 to 3, the result of the survey and appraisal of appraiser D, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

B. The Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant forest, and deliver the instant forest to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from December 24, 2009 to June 10, 2016, based on the ratio of KRW 14,307,40, and KRW 160,528, the monthly rent from June 11, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant forest.

2. As to the defendant's argument

A. The defendant asserted that the forest land of this case is properly occupied by permitting the plaintiff to reside in around October 1984 by leasing KRW 100,000 per annum from E around October 198, and by allowing the plaintiff to reside in the forest of this case after E died in 2001 until F.

B. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that judgment E and F are the owners or the right to rent the forest of this case, the above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.