1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim added in the trial is dismissed.

3...

1. In full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser F of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff is the owner of the land in Gwangju-si and 1,417 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the change of subdivision and land category, and the Defendant constructed each building stated in the purport of the claim on the instant land and owns the facilities installed (hereinafter “instant building, etc.”) around January 2013, based on the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff is the owner of the land in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and 1,592 square meters prior to the change of subdivision and land category; and (b) the Defendant is the owner of the instant land.

According to the above facts, the defendant possessed the building of this case on the land of this case owned by the plaintiff, and occupied the land of this case.

As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to remove the instant building, etc., deliver the instant land, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, unless it proves that there is a legitimate title to occupy the instant land.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The defendant alleged that Eul evidence 10-1 (the written consent to the use of land and a road (a building) has been authentic) of the evidence No. 10-1 (the written consent to the use of land and a road (a building), and the written consent to the use of the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "written consent to the use of the

] Based on B, around December 2012, in order to construct the instant building, etc. on the instant land, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s G, H, and I (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”)

Since the use of the instant land was approved for building, permission for development activities, and connection with superior officials, it is asserted that there was a legitimate title to occupy the instant land.

As to this, the Plaintiff only delivered the Plaintiff’s seal to the Defendant’s end that it is necessary to install containers on the instant land, and the Defendant arbitrarily affixed the Plaintiff’s seal on the written consent to the use of the instant land, and ② the written consent to the use of the instant land at the time of issuance of the Plaintiff’s seal impression and seal.