1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 11, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to forest E-, 61,686 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”).

B. On February 3, 2010, the Plaintiff divided the size of 4,958 square meters, among E forest land 61,686 square meters into F forest land 4,958 square meters. On September 28, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration transfer on September 27, 201 with respect to F forest land 4,958 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) divided into F forest land 4,958 square meters (hereinafter “F forest land”) divided into the Defendants, G, and H as above.

The Defendants, a married couple, installed Defendant C’s parents joint burial in the land owned by the Defendants immediately after the transfer of ownership.

C. The Defendants, from April 8, 2012 to April 8, 2012, installed a tombstone on the land owned by the Defendants and the instant land adjacent thereto, as shown in the separate sheet. D.

The rent of the instant land is KRW 11,410 per annum from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, and KRW 11,700 per annum from April 1, 2014 (=468,000 x 2.5%).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10 through 12 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser J, the result of the request for supplementation of the survey and the result of the request for voluntary appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant land, and pay for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the instant land, barring any special circumstance, since they occupy the instant land as the parent cemetery of Defendant C.

B. The Defendants’ defenses asserted that the Plaintiff permitted the use of the instant land as a cemetery. Thus, the Defendants did not dispute between the above facts of recognition and the parties, or evidence Nos. 10, 11, and 1 and 2 respectively.