1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition (1) The Defendant constructed several buildings on the land (C, D, E, F, and G) and five lots (hereinafter “instant land”) other than the land listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), and completed the registration of initial ownership on June 20, 1995. The Defendant operated the Gyeyang on the instant building.

(2) On the ground of part (i) and 218 square meters (hereinafter “instant part of the land”), which connects each point of the attached drawings 1-4, 12, 7-11, and 1 among the instant land, part of the fraternity of the steel pipe structure, pipe structure, and the instant part of the instant building (hereinafter “instant part”) is located.

The Defendant has occupied and used the entire land of this case to own and use the building of this case, including the fraternity part of this case.

(3) The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from H on July 23, 2009 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on July 29, 2009.

(4) The sum of the rent from July 23, 2009 to October 22, 2018 for the instant land is KRW 2,805,00, and the monthly rent as of October 22, 2018 is KRW 35,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 7, results of each appraisal commission, fact-finding inquiry, and purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant owned the building on the ground of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and occupied and used the instant land.

Therefore, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, has the duty to remove the part of the fraternity of this case to the Plaintiff, deliver the land of this case, and return the money equivalent to the rent for the land of this case as unjust enrichment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the claim that the transfer registration of land in the Plaintiff’s name is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, H, despite the fact that the land in this case was sold to the Defendant and paid the price in full, shall be objection to the Plaintiff.