1.For the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, A.

DefendantB shall indicate 1,2,3,4,5.3 of the attached Form 1 of the land indicated in the attached Table.

1. Around 2006, the Defendants agreed to take corrective measures immediately against the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, the owner of the land listed in the separate sheet, who leased each of the corresponding parts specified in paragraph (1) of the order of the said land from the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, and upon receiving sanctions from the relevant administrative agency due to the lessee’s illegal acts

The Defendants committed an illegal act on the above land, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, who received a corrective order from the Si interest market, informed the Defendants of it. However, the Defendants breached the above agreement by failing to immediately correct it.

Plaintiff

The succeeding intervenor terminated the lease contract with the Defendants on the ground that the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case was made by the succeeding intervenor.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to restore and deliver the parts corresponding to each subparagraph of paragraph (1) of the order out of the land indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, who is the lessor and the owner of the land indicated in the attached list, and return the unjust enrichment for rent.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. The dismissed part

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 7, the Plaintiff’s assertion Nos. 1, 3-1, 3-2, and 7, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said land to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor on the ground that the Plaintiff was entrusted with the land indicated in the separate sheet by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor on or around March 2009, and that the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor leased the said land to the Defendants, respectively, on September 25, 2013.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner or lessor of the above land is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent arising from the occupation and use of land against the Defendants. However, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and the Defendants were concluded.