1. Of the instant lawsuit, the claim against Defendant B for the unpaid rent on the ground buildings indicated in the separate drawings.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff: (a) donated the instant building from Nonparty D, which newly constructed the instant sub-ground building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”); and (b) concluded a lease agreement with Defendant B on a monthly rent of KRW 400,000 between the two buildings; (b) Defendant B did not pay the rent of KRW 54,60,000 from October 201 to June 2014; and (c) the Defendant B is obligated to pay it to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant B, on the land owned by the Plaintiff, arbitrarily built each building on the ground of the following: (a) caused by the occurrence of a loss in the attached drawing; (b) caused by the occurrence of the instant disaster; (c) fright, or falle on the land owned by the Plaintiff; and (d) obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 18 million by using the said land from June 26, 2009 to May 2014; (b) thus, Defendant B is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff.

C. From Defendant B, the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) is jointly and severally obligated to return the instant building to the Plaintiff KRW 700,000 per month from July 1, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of each of the above buildings. The Selection F is the instant building, and the Selection G is the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the Plaintiff’s land by leasing the instant building from B to B. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to return the instant building from July 1, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of each of the above buildings.

In addition, Defendant C, Selected G, F, and E are above C.

Since each building mentioned in paragraph (1) is illegally occupied, it shall be removed from each building.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Defendant C filed a lawsuit against Defendant B seeking a rent on the instant instant wwal, 18799 by the District Court Decision 2007Gadan18799, but filed the lawsuit of this case after the withdrawal by the appellate court, which again filed the lawsuit of this case, against the principle of prohibition of re-instigation (Article 267(2) of the Civil Procedure Act).

Where a lawsuit has been withdrawn after the final judgment of the court of first instance.