1. The decision of the court of first instance against the defendant in excess of the following portions shall be revoked, and this shall apply.

1. Basic facts

A. A list on October 27, 2009 by the Plaintiff through an auction procedure

1. The land owner acquired the ownership of the CJ 1,104 square meters in Pakistan, including the portion of the land indicated (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On September 19, 2014, the Defendant’s list of the land above the instant land through the auction procedure.

2. The ownership of the indicated building (hereinafter “instant building”) was acquired.

C. As to the instant building portion, the monthly rent as of December 19, 2014 was KRW 52,322, and is presumed to be the same amount even from September 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1-1, the result of the appraisal of rent by the appraiser J of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant owned the instant building and occupied the instant land without any legal ground. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land, and to pay unjust enrichment calculated by the Defendant at the rate of KRW 52,00,00, which is an amount equivalent to the monthly rent from September 19, 2014 to the completion date of the said delivery, from September 19, 2014, the ownership of the instant building.

B. 1) The portion of the claim to dismiss a building is an act of fact that constitutes a final disposition of ownership. Thus, in principle, the owner of the building has the right to remove and dispose of the building, and exceptionally, the right to remove and dispose of the building within the scope of such right, such as the purchase and possession of the building from the former owner, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da61521, Jan. 24, 2003). Barring special circumstances, a person who is not the owner of the building cannot be deemed the person who actually occupies the site of the building even if he actually occupies the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935, Nov. 13, 2003).