1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C was awarded a successful bid of 430 square meters of D forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) at the auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 12, 2013, and sold the instant land to the Plaintiff on October 23, 2013, with the involvement of the interest-based stock company.

B. On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained permission to engage in development activities for the instant land from the Sungsung market. On January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff contracted construction works for the instant land-based building to the Lee In-uri Co., Ltd. on January 8, 2014. On March 25, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit for the construction of Class II neighborhood living facilities on the instant land from the Sungsung market.

C. However, on February 1, 2015, the Defendant’s wife purchased the instant land and a new building that had not been registered on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) from C for KRW 300 million, and agreed to register the preservation of ownership of the instant building in the name of E after changing the name of the building owner, such as the name of the building owner, in the name of C and E, into E.

E paid the down payment and the intermediate payment to C, and the Defendant occupied the instant building on March 1, 2015, along with E, and subsequently rescinded the said sales contract with the F succeeded to C on July 24, 2015, and returned the instant building on August 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 8, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the owner of the building which was newly constructed at his own expense, and the ownership of the building was originally acquired. The defendant who used and used the building of this case without any legal ground in relation to the plaintiff is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the profit of use to the plaintiff.

B. In addition to the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of Gap evidence No. 5, the court below held that the plaintiff had acquired the building of this case upon the original acquisition of the building of this case, as alleged by the plaintiff.