1. Defendant (Appointed Party) indicated on the Plaintiff, and indicated on the accompanying drawings 1, 2, 3.3 among the rooftops of the building on the 7th floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B ground.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the results of the survey and appraisal of appraiser A’s evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6, and 3 and 4 (including each number), and the results of the survey and appraisal of appraiser D by the Gangnam-gu Office of this Court, as a result of the fact inquiry and the whole arguments.

The Plaintiff is the owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building 7 Ground B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) and the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) is the owner of the advertising tower and steel scrap list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant advertising tower”) set up on the rooftop of the instant building.

B. The instant building was jointly owned by E and F, and the Plaintiff acquired ownership as of December 30, 201, via Cheongong Integrated Construction Co., Ltd.

C. Around April 2005, the Defendant obtained the consent from E and F at the time of the instant building to use the advertising tower for three years from May 10, 2005 to May 9, 2008, and installed the instant advertising tower with permission for displaying outdoor advertisements, etc. for the same period from the office of Gangnam-gu, the competent authority, for the same period.

On April 4, 2008, the Defendant obtained permission to change the manager of the advertising tower of this case to Defendant and Selection C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Since then, the Defendants shared one-half shares of the advertising tower, and jointly managed the advertising tower of this case, the Defendant received 1/2 shares from Selection C on April 23, 2013.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim for removal of the advertising tower of this case, the defendant installed the advertising tower on the rooftop of the building of this case owned by the plaintiff and occupied and used the pertinent rooftop part. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the advertisement tower of this case by excluding interference based on the ownership of the building of this case. 2) The defendant is obligated to remove unjust enrichment to the plaintiff seeking removal of the advertising tower of this case.