1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3...

1. The reasons why the court should explain by the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment mentioned in paragraph (2) to the allegations added and emphasized by the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. Since buildings cannot exist in light of social norms as a matter of course from their 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 does not actually occupy the building or its site.

Even if the land is occupied for the ownership of the building, it should be viewed that the land is occupied.

(2) As to the land owned by another person without authority, a person who owns a building on the land owned by another person without authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28462, Sept. 10, 209). As such, barring any special circumstance, barring special circumstance, barring any legal ground, gains profit equivalent to the rent of the land from another person’s property, and thereby causes considerable damages to another person.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da76522, 76539, Jul. 14, 2011).

The defendant asserts that unjust enrichment occurred, the plaintiffs did not prepare a written consent for the use of the land necessary for the defendant's report on the bath business so that they interfere with the use of the building, which constitutes a special circumstance where the defendant's unjust enrichment is not recognized.

However, in light of the above legal principles, the owner of a building does not actually occupy the building or its site.

Even if the land was occupied for the ownership of the building, it should be deemed that the land was occupied, and the fact that the plaintiffs did not prepare a written consent for land use was obstructing the use of the defendant's building.

Since it cannot be deemed that the defendant excluded possession of the land, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

C. The argument regarding the scope of return of unjust enrichment