1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

The scope of this court’s judgment in the first instance court against the Defendants possessing the instant house, <1> claims for delivery of the instant house on the grounds of termination of the lease contract, ② claims for rent of the instant house on the grounds of lease contract, ③ claims for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the instant house on the basis of ownership, ③ The first instance court accepted the said claims on the premise that the owner of the instant house is the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to recognize the existence of the Plaintiff’s assertion as the lease contract.

Of the part against the plaintiff, the plaintiff appealed the above part of the claim ① and changed the cause of the claim into the claim for return based on ownership. The scope of the court's judgment is limited to the claim for delivery of the house of this case

Judgment

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff purchased the instant land No. 1 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 6, 1982, around August 1982.

On the ground of the instant land No. 1 and its right adjacent thereto, there are the instant land without permission, such as the indication of the attached drawing, on the ground of the instant land No. 2. From around 1997, B resided in the instant housing and died on February 25, 2018, and the Defendants jointly inherited the said property.

Meanwhile, the land No. 2 in the instant case was purchased on September 29, 1964 by J, and owned by K on October 17, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of the request for the measurement and appraisal to the Chief of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the result of the fact inquiry to the Chief of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the fact inquiry to this court, the fact that the whole purport of the pleading, and the substantial part of the house in this case is on the ground of the land No. 2, which was irrelevant to the plaintiff's ownership, when considering the fact that the plaintiff purchased the land No. 1 in this case around August 1982, the fact that the plaintiff purchased the land No. 1 in this case.