1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. In the first instance court within the scope of this court’s trial, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for the removal of buildings and the request for the delivery of land and the claim for the return of unjust enrichment against a counterclaim. The Defendant filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment against a counterclaim. The first instance court accepted the entire request for removal of buildings and the request for delivery of land in the principal lawsuit and partly accepted the claim for unjust enrichment

Accordingly, only the Defendant appealed on the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, and then withdrawn an appeal regarding the counterclaim in the court of first instance. As such, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the claim for restitution

2. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the case where “6,263,00 won” of the 21th judgment of the first instance is “52,00 won” as “52,00 won.” Thus, this part of the basic facts are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as they are, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The reasoning for the judgment on the claim for return of unjust enrichment among the claims filed by the plaintiffs is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 5, 10 to 11, respectively), except in the following cases. Thus, this part of the claim is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From 9th to 10th of the first instance judgment, the 19th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the

“2) The judgment on the set-off ground against the claim for damages arising from nonperformance or tort was made by the Defendant’s assertion that the claim was made, on August 26, 2001, H voluntarily left from the religious order to which the Defendant belongs and created a new church with the members following the withdrawal and “G church.” From November 2001 to July 2008, the above GG church owned by the Defendant and the instant church building owned by the Defendant and the Seoul Yangcheon-gu K Forest land and Q.