1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The above land shall be removed with respect to the portion of 1/5 of the ground building on the land indicated in the annexed sheet, and the above land shall be 1.

1. On July 1, 1996, the Plaintiff, including the purchase of the Plaintiff’s land and the management of the Defendant’s building, purchased the land indicated in the attached Form C (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground wooden fixtures and 26.4 square meters on the ground, and completed each registration of ownership transfer on July 22, 1996. The registration of destruction was completed on August 30, 2006.

On the other hand, D, his father, around 1980, built a building on the ground of the instant land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”), and five persons, including the Defendant, who died on October 1, 1983, became co-inheritors according to their respective shares of inheritance 1/5.

After that, the Defendant leased the instant building to E on June 8, 2005 while managing the instant building.

The actual rent of the instant land is KRW 48,936,960 in total from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2019, and KRW 483,030 in total after October 1, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, result of entrustment of appraisal of rent, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above, as long as the Defendant et al. jointly inherited D, the owner of the instant building, did not have the title to occupy the instant land, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff within the limit of each share of inheritance, and the amount equivalent to the rent for each of the instant land should be returned to the unjust enrichment.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment in excess of this is without merit, since it succeeded to legal superficies under customary law from D, there exists a right to possess the instant land, and ② the Plaintiff’s real profit is merely KRW 10,000,000 by leasing the instant building at a rent of KRW 10,000 per annum.

In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the owner of the instant land by auction in the voluntary auction procedure.