1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the real estate listed in the attached Form 1, the land survey and appraisal in attached Form 2 is marked 15, 16, 21, 24, and 15.

1. In this case where the plaintiff's exercise of rights based on ownership in this case, the defendant is not the plaintiff's owner, and thus, the plaintiff is not the plaintiff's owner. However, the issue of whether the plaintiff is the plaintiff's owner is without merit.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, real estate recorded in the order is owned by the plaintiff. The defendant occupied the part of "A" and "B" recorded in the order (hereinafter "the part of the order of this case") from before December 5, 2017, and used it as a store after completing a business report entered in the order of this case's place of business, and the rent for the part possessed by the defendant is equivalent to KRW 3.5 million per month.

3. If the determination of the cause of the claim is based on the Plaintiff’s claim for exclusion of interference with ownership, the Defendant shall deliver the said occupied part to the Plaintiff, perform the procedure for reporting the closure of the business report, and pay the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 3.5 million per month, which is an amount equivalent to the rent, from December 5, 2017 to delivery upon the claim for return of unjust enrichment.

4. The defendant's defense that the defendant used the dispute part of this case with the consent of C, which is the legitimate lessee of the above real estate, but there is no evidence to deem that C has the right to use the dispute part of this case. Thus, the argument is without merit.

5. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified.