1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter the Plaintiff) sought reimbursement of unjust enrichment equivalent to the profits from the removal of each building, fence removal, delivery of land, and use of the building site. The first instance court accepted only the claim for removal of the building, delivery of the land, and unjust enrichment and dismissed the claim for removal of the wall.

The defendants appealed against the above cited part, which is subject to the judgment of this court, is limited to the removal of the cited building, the delivery of the land, and the claim for unjust enrichment.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. Request for demolition of the building;

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is to seek unjust enrichment against the Defendants from the removal of the building Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter “the instant building”) and from the delivery of the site and the profits from the use of the site. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants, who are not the owners of the said building, agreed to purchase the instant building upon the completion of the construction, and lent the name of the owner of the building upon the completion of the construction.

B. 1) The relevant legal doctrine is a factual act that constitutes a final disposition of ownership. As such, in principle, the right to remove and dispose of the building is held by only the owner (the registrant in principle under the Civil Act). An exceptional case is the right to remove and dispose of the building within the scope of the right, such as the purchase and possession of the building from the former owner, etc., by a person in a position to legally or factually dispose of the building in possession within the scope of the right (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da61521, Jan. 24, 2003). The ownership of a newly constructed building is, in principle, in his/her effort and materials