1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant (Appointed Party) is each of the following: drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 on the ground of 22 square meters in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 25, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired 110.07/237 shares on the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land, and on February 14, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the remaining shares of 126.93/237 shares on the ground of “the termination of mutual title trust as of June 22, 2010.”

B. On October 19, 2004, the Selection C acquired the ownership of a wooden ground roof, a 61.10 square meters house, a 61.10 square meters and a 15.93 square meters house with a wooden roof roof of an affiliated building (hereinafter “instant building”) located on the said Plaintiff’s land, adjacent to the said Plaintiff’s land, and transferred the ownership to the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) on December 27, 2012.

C. The instant building extends over the ground surface of 22 square meters on board, which connects each point of the Plaintiff’s land indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 among the Plaintiff’s land adjacent thereto, as well as Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”).

The rent of the instant land is KRW 126,50 per month from February 14, 2012 to December 23, 2013, and KRW 133,650 per month from December 24, 2013 to December 23, 2014, and KRW 140,250 per month from December 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute exists, entry in Gap 1 and 5 evidence, result of surveying and appraisal commission for the Korea Intellectual Property Corporation, result of appraiser E's appraisal of rent, purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above fact of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant owned the building of this case, thereby obstructing the exercise of the plaintiff's ownership by occupying the land of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the wooden house on the ground of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff.

In addition, the Selection C and the Defendant acquired unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land by occupying the instant land by owning the instant building. As such, the Selection C and the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land from February 14, 2012 until December 26, 2012, which is the day before the date on which the Selection B and the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land, the sum of 1,318.