All of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is the owner of the area of 58 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff, in the order of the Plaintiff’s housing and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the area of Annex 1 through 4, and 1 among the instant land, the part of item (a) and 8.25 square meters (hereinafter “the part of item (a) of the instant land”) connected to the instant land, which are connected in order of the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land owned by the Defendants, Hagu-gun, Ma-gun, F, G reinforced concrete ground structure, and three floors of housing and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks against the Defendants the removal of the part corresponding to the ground of the instant item (a) of the instant building based on ownership, and the delivery of the part corresponding to the instant item (a) from September 5, 2015, the following day after Defendant C acquired the ownership of the instant building, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally pays the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 1,00,000 per month from September 5, 2015 to the time when it delivers the Plaintiff.

2. According to the records in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), it is recognized that the plaintiff owned the land of this case from November 16, 1989, among the buildings of this case constructed on the former E, F, and G ground adjacent to the land of this case, the registration of preservation of ownership as to the shares on February 20, 2012, the registration of preservation of ownership as to the shares on February 25, 208/186.79, and the defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the shares of this case on September 7, 2015, and thereafter, the above shares are owned.

However, there is no evidence to deem that part of the building of this case was built in duplicating the land of this case.

Rather, according to the result of the request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this Court, it is only recognized that the occupancy status line of the building in this case is consistent with the cadastral line of the site as shown in the attached Form 2.

Therefore, part of the instant building owned by the Defendants is owned by the Plaintiff.