1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim added and changed in the trial, shall be modified as follows.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, since the reasoning for this part of the basic facts is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2, No. 8 to No. 3, No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part is

In the second sentence of the first instance judgment, the term “non-standing social gathering company of a stock company” in the second sentence of the first instance judgment is regarded as “non-standing social gathering company of a stock company” (hereinafter “non-standing social gathering company”).

B. The second page 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the “F” in the first page 11 and 15 is deemed to be “K” respectively.

C. On No. 7 of the first instance judgment, the first instance court held that “No. 2-1 through 4 of the A” was “No. 2-1 through No. 4” (the Defendant asserted that the transferor’s column was altered from “F” to “K, but no evidence exists to acknowledge it).

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the claim for delivery of a main abandonment and oil storage tank are as follows: (a) the reason why the court explains this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (b) the "F" is respectively dismissed as "K"; and (c) the reason why the judgment of the court of first instance is just as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 3, 11, 5, 8, 3, 3, 4, 4, 2, and 7, 8, 4, 4, 4, and 8, 4, 4, and 42, 4, 4, 4, and 12, 4, 40

3. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the use of a main abandonment and oil storage tank

A. Since the Defendant’s assertion commenced the gas station business of this case, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the rent from the Plaintiff by occupying and using the five main organic households and seven oil storage tanks without permission, so the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 1,00,000 per month from May 12, 2006 to the completion date of delivery of the oil storage tank seven oil storage tanks.

(b)the use of the five main abandoned oil storage tank and seven oil storage tank.