1. The defendant's prior teaching institute is the plaintiff foundation foundation's prior teaching institute

A. Of the land size of 128.3 square meters in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, indication 11, 12, 13, 13.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the land of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”), Plaintiff A owned the same until November 10, 2010 after completing the registration of ownership transfer on March 7, 2003.

Plaintiff

The National Institute of Private Teaching Institutes, a foundation, purchased the instant land from Plaintiff A and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 11, 2010.

B. The building owned by the Defendant was newly constructed on June 26, 1928, on the 24.60 square meters of the Haak-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mapo-Mapo-dong Housing (hereinafter “Defendant-owned building”). Thereafter, F completed each registration of ownership transfer on February 22, 1991, E and July 19, 197, but the Defendant completed that registration of ownership transfer on June 5, 2002.

C. A building owned by the Defendant is constructed with a part of 6.5 square meters in the ship connected in order to each point of the attached Form 11, 12, 13, 14, 6, 5, 4, and 11 among the instant land (hereinafter “instant part of possession”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, result of the survey and appraisal by appraiser G, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the removal and extradition request of the Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation, the Defendant owned a building on the ground of 6.5 square meters among the instant land, thereby hindering the exercise of ownership of the Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation, which is the owner of the instant land. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the building on the ground of 6.5 square meters in possession of the instant land to the Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation and deliver it to the Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation.

B. According to the facts of recognition 1 of the plaintiffs' claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, the defendant, by occupying and using part of 6.5 square meters of the land of this case, obtains profit equivalent to his rent, and as a result, thereby causing damage to the same amount to the plaintiffs, who are the land owners of this case. Thus, the defendant is equivalent to the rent for the period of possession by the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.