1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared land (hereinafter “instant land”) with the wife D of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and other siblings C, both with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant. Of the instant land, the Plaintiff’s co-ownership is 3/6, the Defendant’s co-ownership is 2/6, and the Defendant’s co-ownership is 1/6.

B. On the ground of the instant land, cement block/cement and housing (area 29.58 square meters), wooden housing (area 56.9 square meters), earth and brick storage (area 207 square meters), which are unregistered buildings, were located on the instant land (i.e., wooden housing, and soil brick storage (area 207 square meters), and the Defendant husband and wife were residing in the instant housing, which was difficult to May 2012.

C. On May 27, 2012, the instant housing was destroyed by a cause and aesthetic fire in the instant housing, and the instant housing was destroyed in the process of extinguishing fire.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant fire”). After that, the Defendant removed the instant stored house, and newly built a detached house on the ground of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted from around 2006, without the consent of the Plaintiff, who is the 1/2 owner of the instant land, had resided in the instant housing without permission, and used the instant storage machine.

During that period, the Defendant’s negligence of neglecting the management of the instant housing caused a fire to the instant housing, and the instant housing was relocated, and the instant stored area was virtually destroyed.

Therefore, the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant house and the 1/2 owner of the instant storage house, incurred by the Plaintiff from losing the instant house and the instant storage house, and the Defendant’s unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that the instant house and the instant storage house were occupied for six years, respectively.