1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the area of 4,413 square meters in the previous 4,000 square meters in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-do, the respective points are indicated in the annexed drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff: (a) purchased the said real estate at the auction procedure for DD real estate auction in the Republic of Korea with respect to the area of 4,413 square meters in Jeonnam-do, Jeonnam-do; (b) paid in full the sale price on August 17, 2016; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 22, 2016.

B. At the time when the Plaintiff received the decision of permission for sale at the above auction procedure, there were vinyl houses and trees owned by the Defendant, which were not included in the subject of sale on the ground of the above real estate (hereinafter “the instant vinyl houses”).

C. Since the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the pertinent real estate, the instant vinyl still exists on the ground as it existed until the closing date of pleadings, and its location is as follows: (a) part (a) of 434 square meters inboard (hereinafter “instant land”) connected with each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 (hereinafter “instant land”). Since the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land, the monthly rent for the instant land is KRW 27,120,000, until the closing date of pleadings.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-3 evidence, the branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this Court, the result of each commission of appraisal by the appraisal corporation to the Japanese Appraisal Board, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant is obligated to remove the instant vinyl, deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff money calculated at the rate of KRW 27,120 per month from August 18, 2016 to the date the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land due to unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, since the Defendant owned the instant vinyl on the ground of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff and occupied the instant land without permission.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that the vinyl house of this case is established on the land of this case with the previous owner's permission for use of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's request for removal is unjustifiable, but the circumstance alleged by the defendant alone