1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

1. The counterclaim’s assertion of the counterclaim is the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”). Since the counterclaim Defendant constructed a building on the ground of the instant land from November 14, 2016 to September 17, 2018 and occupied the instant land, the counterclaim Defendant is obligated to pay to the counterclaim the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 759,000 per month, which is the amount equivalent to the rent of the instant land during the said period, as unjust enrichment. The counterclaim suffered emotional distress due to the aforementioned unauthorized possession by the counterclaim Defendant, and the counterclaim Defendant is obligated to pay to the counterclaim the solatium the solatium the solatium 10 million consolation money and delay damages therefrom.

2. In order to make a claim for unjust enrichment on the ground that the possession of the land was infringed due to the existence of the building, it should be claimed against the owner of the building. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the counterclaim Defendant owned the building on the ground of the instant land.

In addition, the written evidence Nos. 14 and 15 alone is insufficient to recognize that the counterclaim Defendant occupied the instant land without permission by any other means than the ownership of the building, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim for consolation money on the premise that the counterclaim defendant occupied the land of this case without permission is without merit, and it is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.