1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. An appraisal map in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, among the 707 square meters and C large 741 square meters in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu and the 741 square meters in size.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff, the cause of the claim, obtained ownership on April 29, 2013, is not in dispute between the parties concerned, or that the Plaintiff occupied the Plaintiff by constructing a container building or piling up materials as described in paragraph (1) of this Article, or by taking account of the entire purport of the pleadings as a result of the Defendant’s request for measurement and appraisal of mountainous districts located in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, the ownership of which was acquired on April 29, 2013 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

Therefore, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, has the duty to deliver each of the instant land to the Plaintiff, and return gains from possession from April 29, 2013 to the completion date of the delivery, which the Plaintiff acquired ownership, to the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant defenses to the effect that since the defendant acquired legal superficies under customary law, the plaintiff's request for extradition is groundless.

The statutory superficies under the Dolcheon customary law is established when a building belongs to the same owner as the land, but the building or the land becomes different from both owners due to sale and purchase, etc. of the building or the land. Since the Defendant leased from D around March 1997 the 707 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, and 321 square meters in size, and the 1247 square meters in size in size, and constructed a new building under an agreement with D, the owner of the land, to conduct a wood business on April 20, 1997, the legal superficies under the customary law is not established even in its assertion itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Amount of unjust gains.

A. The scope of return of unjust enrichment due to the possession of real estate shall be the amount equivalent to the rent, barring special circumstances. While the Defendant cannot recognize the rent of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the rent of land is generally equivalent to 2% of the purchase price, and the purport of the entire pleading is as stated in the evidence No. 10.