1. According to the Plaintiff’s amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant owns a 1/2 share among the 378 square meters in the Gu, Si, Si, Gu (hereinafter “instant land”) and a building on the ground of the instant land (a wooden flag, a roof, a single-story house, and a wooden flag attached to 20 square and 73 square and 27 square and 12 square and 27 square and 12 square and 12 square and 27 square and 12 square and 27 square and 12 square and 2

B. On June 20, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased 1/2 of the instant land during the voluntary auction procedure.

C. On March 11, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for land use fee of KRW 500,000 with the Daegu District Court Decision 2009Gau29216, Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”), and on March 11, 2010, the above court adjusted that the Defendant paid KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff by March 19, 2010. The Defendant paid KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff according to the result of the above conciliation.

On October 30, 2013, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for partition of co-owned property on the instant land as Daegu District Court Kimcheon-dong 2013Ga7635, and on October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a claim for partition of co-owned property on the instant land, and on the remainder after deducting auction expenses from the sale price, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sold the instant land and buildings by auction, conciliation was concluded to divide the amount equivalent to 1/2 shares and buildings to the Plaintiff, and the amount equivalent to 1/2 shares in the instant land and buildings to the Plaintiff, and following the conciliation, the instant land and buildings were put to formal auction for partition of co-owned property, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the first instance.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As a matter of social norms, a building that incurs unjust enrichment cannot exist regardless of its site, the land that became the site for the building is occupied by the owner of the building. In this case, the owner of the building actually occupies the building or its site.