1. The portion of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in the judgment of the court of first instance, which exceeds the following payment order.

1. As to the Defendant’s appeal against the entire judgment rendered by the first instance court prior to remanding the scope of the party’s trial, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the part on the removal of buildings and the part on the claim for delivery of land among them, and reversed the judgment of the first instance prior to remanding the appeal by accepting only the Defendant’s appeal against the portion on the claim for return of unjust

Therefore, the subject of the trial after remand is limited to the above reversed and remanded portion, namely, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

2. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the first instance court’s on-site verification of the rent of August 9, 201, the result of the first instance court’s on-site verification of the facts, and the result of the first instance court’s on-site verification of the facts.

On March 13, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the 3-story office (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land” and “Plaintiff’s building”) for the purpose of 27.11 square meters underground of 27.11 square meters of 27.11 square meters of the office’s 27.11 square meters of 27.1 square meters of 27.1 square meters of 27.1 square meters of 27.1 square meters of 27.3 square meters of office’s 1st, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the building in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 173 square meters of 173 square meters of land and its attached list (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) on March 6, 1998.

B. The Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land are abutting on one side, and the Plaintiff’s land was owned by E, and the Defendant’s land was owned by F. However, E and F, as a joint owner on May 15, 1979, obtained a construction permit and completed the completion inspection on November 28, 1979, following the construction of the Plaintiff’s building and the Defendant’s building, respectively. The Plaintiff’s building was owned by E, and the Defendant’s building owned by F, respectively.

C. However, the Defendant’s building was part of the Plaintiff’s land since its construction.