1. The part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. All of the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant C.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant D, as the owner of the land of this case, has removed each of the buildings of this case and delivered each of the parts of this case 1, 2, 3, and 44. The Defendants, as the unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to the rent for occupying and using each of the above parts to each of the plaintiffs, are 35,323 won per month from October 17, 2013 to December 31, 2013 (79,147, 2, 08, 700, 208, 700, 200, 308, 208, 208, 308, 208, 207, 308, 208, 208, 208, 208, 308, 208, 308, 208, 208, 308, 2008.

The Plaintiff also sought the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the delivery of the parts of this case 1, 2, c, and 44 and the above parts from Defendant C. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C occupied each part of the land of this case 1, 2, c, and 4 with Defendant D, the mere fact that Defendant C occupied and used the buildings of this case 1 through 4 together with Defendant D cannot be deemed to have occupied and used each part of the land of this case 1, 2, c, and div.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to Defendant C is without merit.

B. Defendant D’s determination as to Defendant D’s defense in violation of the good faith principle of 1 as to Defendant D’s defense. Each of the buildings of this case Nos. 1 through 4 was originally owned as part of an unauthorized building newly constructed on or before April 8, 1982, and owned to I on August 5, 198. The above Defendant purchased the instant unauthorized building on October 8, 2009 and purchased it.