1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the land size of 196 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1.

The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 10, 200 with respect to the land of 196 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”); the Defendant is the owner of the D. D. 324 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”) adjacent to the instant land; and the part of the instant building is constructed on the land of 35 square meters in parts of the attached drawing among the instant land (hereinafter “instant dispute land”) connected with each point of 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 35 square meters in parts of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”) among the instant land in sequence, or there is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of each entry or video of the evidence under subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including a number of pages) (hereinafter “instant building”).

According to the above facts, the defendant removed the part of the house of this case installed in the land of this case, and delivered the land of this case, and the plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the date of completion of delivery of the land of this case or by the time of loss of ownership of the land of this case.

Furthermore, according to the health team and appraiser E’s appraisal result as to the amount of unjust enrichment, the rent for the land in question owned by the Plaintiff from August 10, 2009 to August 9, 2016 is the aggregate of 17,168,000 won, and the rent for the land in question from August 10, 2016 to December 31, 2016 is recognized as 175,000 won per month (the Defendant did not have any grounds to view that the rent should be calculated based on 0.2% per annum), but there is no ground to view that the subsequent rent should be the same as the annual capital gains, so the Defendant is ratified in light of the empirical rule as to the amount of rent for the land in question, and the amount of rent for the land in question from August 10, 201 to October 18, 2016 to the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and damages for delay from October 16 to 18, 2016.