1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) remove the buildings listed in Annex 2;

(b) Appendix 1.

1. Following the determination of the plaintiff's cause of action does not conflict between the parties, each entry of Gap 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of a request for appraisal by the appraiser C of this court.

① In other words, the Plaintiff awarded a successful bid on August 5, 2014 with the land specified in Paragraph (1) of the attached Table in the procedure for the voluntary auction of real estate D with Sungwon District Court Sung-nam Branch.

② The Defendant owns a building listed in attached Table 2 on the ground of the above land.

③ As of April 20, 2015, the rent of the above land as of April 20, 2015, is KRW 434,400 per month.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove the above building, deliver the above land to the plaintiff, and pay the amount equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 434,400 per month from August 5, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the above land from August 5, 2014 to the date of delivery of the above land due to unjust enrichment return.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff knew of the existence of the above building at the time of the successful bid.

However, there is room to see the defendant's assertion as abuse of rights defense, but it is difficult to see the plaintiff's claim as abuse of rights just because the defendant's assertion and the above building are new buildings which completed registration of preservation of ownership on June 28, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.