1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the judgment identical to that of paragraph (2) to the argument at the trial, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion lies in H, the taxpayer’s name is F’s son on the tax ledger, and the Defendant is not the owner of the building of this case, and the part of the building of this case is removed, and the part of the building of this case is delivered, and there is no obligation to return unjust enrichment related to the possession of the part on the ship of this case.

B. Where a building constructed on another’s land is unregistered and the ownership of the building is infringed upon, the person obligated to remove the building is in a position to dispose of the building legally and de facto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da11278, Jun. 11, 1991). A person who acquires and occupies an unregistered building by transfer is in a position to dispose of the building in a de facto manner.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3073, Feb. 14, 1989). Moreover, a transferee who acquired an unregistered building and acquired its de facto right to dispose of the building by transfer may be deemed to possess the building site.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da61193 Decided January 28, 2010). In full view of the entries in Evidence Nos. 1-3 and Evidence Nos. 5-3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant purchased the instant building on the ground from F on September 22, 1993 along with D’s land at the same time, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that the building at issue was leased to another person as he/she had resided in the instant building, such as his/her family, after he/she repaired the instant building at the expense of KRW 25,00,000. In addition, the Defendant’s acquisition and use of the instant building on the premise that the Defendant himself/herself is the disposal authority of the instant building.