1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. From May 3, 2018, the Defendant is against the 694 square meters of Gyeonggi-gun C forest land from May 3, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 9, 2018, the Plaintiff (Appointed) and the Appointed D (hereinafter “Appointed”) completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale by compulsory auction on May 3, 2018, based on one-third share of 694 square meters of forests and fields in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

In the name of the owner B (Defendant) and the contractor B (contractor) E, the owner shall enter into a contract with the total of 68 square meters and 20 square meters in total with the first and second floors in Gyeonggi-si (instant land) under the following conditions:

Article 1 (Construction Details and Amount)

1. Civil engineering works on the main debt 68 square meters, separate debt 20 square meters, 500,000 won for the 60,600 square meters for the construction works on the representatives of the steel-frame exterior walls of this case: 21,60,000 won for the 48,600 square meters for the construction works on the mold of concrete: 40,500 won for the 47,000 square meters for the wind wall : 67,000 square meters for the interior, outside and interior, and interior, of the roof 137,00,000 won for the total construction works: 374,70,000 won: 374,70,000 won for the construction works;

2. Date of contract: October 23, 2012: Date of commencement: November 4, 2012: Date of completion: March 30, 2013;

On October 22, 2012, the Defendant concluded a contract for a building to be newly built on the instant land between E and E, and the main contents are as follows:

C. As of the date of the closing of argument in the trial, two unregistered buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”) on the instant land are constructed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 5, Eul's each entry and the purport of whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ claim is that the Defendant built the instant building on the instant land owned by the Plaintiffs and occupied and used the instant land. As such, from May 3, 2018, the Plaintiffs should pay to the Plaintiffs unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from May 3, 2018 to the day when the Plaintiffs lose their ownership of the instant land or the Defendant terminated their occupation.

(b).