1. Defendant B:

(a) remove the buildings listed in Annex 2;

B. Dogpo-si D 36 square meters.

1. On February 22, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant land at the auction procedure; (b) Defendant B owned a building listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table on the land outside of the instant land (the part on the instant land is the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table; (c) the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table is the building indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table; and (d) Defendant C occupied the building listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table; (b) the fact that the Plaintiff occupied the building listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table Nos. 1 and 2; (c) the result of the appraiser’s survey and appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation; (d) the purport of the entire pleadings; or (e) the Defendant B is deemed to have led to a confession pursuant to Article 150 of

According to the above facts, Defendant B occupied the instant land regardless of the actual possession of the instant building or its site.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered a profit from the use of the land of this case and thereby causes damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.

The defendant C, by occupying the building of this case, has interfered with the plaintiff's exercise of land ownership.

I would like to say.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to withdraw from the instant building; Defendant B is obligated to remove the instant building; deliver the instant land; and return the amount equivalent to the profits from the use of the instant land (the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 9,818,424, and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 200,376, March 21, 2017, calculated from February 22, 2013 to March 21, 2017) as unjust enrichment.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted on the grounds of all the claims, and it is so decided as per Disposition.