1. According to the reduction of claims by this court, the judgment of the first instance was modified as follows.

A. The defendant is the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2017, Plaintiff A purchased the land of paragraphs 1 and 2 in the attached list in the former District Court I voluntary auction procedure, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale of the land of paragraphs 1 and 2 in the attached list on November 1, 2017 on the same day.

Plaintiff

B On December 4, 2012, the registration of the transfer of ownership was completed on November 27, 2012 with respect to the land specified in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4 in the separate sheet on December 4, 2012.

B. The Defendant is a company that manufactures concrete, etc. in a factory adjacent to the land in the attached list Nos. 1 through 4.

(c)

Of the land in the attached list Nos. 1 and 2,917 square meters in the land in the attached list, the Defendant drafted a written agreement on December 15, 2017, on the part of 2,583 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) excluding the site for the relevant land, and on the land in the attached list Nos. 3 and 4 (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”), the land in the attached list Nos. 3 and 2,583 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”). However, on the ground of the Plaintiff’s land, the Defendant prepared a concrete structure, waste, etc. (hereinafter “Defendant’s goods”) with the Defendant’s agent without permission on November 16, 2017 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

【Ground of recognition】 The non-contentious facts, Gap’s entries and videos, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant's goods were scattered on the ground of the plaintiffs' land from November 17, 2017 to February 29, 2020. Accordingly, since the plaintiffs suffered losses from being unable to use all of the plaintiffs' land, the defendant is obligated to return unfair benefits equivalent to the rent to the plaintiffs.

2) The Defendant’s goods are located on a part of the land (4,500 square meters among Plaintiff A’s land, and 1,000 square meters among Plaintiff B’s land), not on the entire land of the Plaintiffs, and thus, the Defendant occupied the entire land of the Plaintiffs.

shall not be deemed to exist.

On the other hand, this is.