1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Republic of Korea, a managing authority of the Korea, owns 686.9 square meters for the Yongsan-gu Seoul National Railroad Site B (hereinafter “instant land”) and 189.8 square meters for the Yongsan-gu Seoul National Railroad Site, Yongsan-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant land 2”), establishing the Plaintiff by privatizationing the Korea National Railroad, and subsequently, on January 1, 2005, transferred the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land 1 and 2 due to investment in kind.

B. D completed the registration of initial ownership on July 31, 1979, in relation to 1, 1979, 1, 69, 4, 7, 7, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 34, 34, 3, 1, 1, 34, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2

C. D died on June 2, 2002, and the Defendant, as the grandchildren of D, succeeded to 1/4 of D’s inherited property as a result of some inheritors’ renunciation of inheritance.

Around 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to 1/4 out of the rent from January 2005 to February 201, 201, by asserting that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 through ownership of the shares of 1/4 among the instant buildings, and that unjust enrichment equivalent to 1/4 out of the rent for each of the said lands has been granted, and that the Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to 1/2 out of the rent from January 2005 to February 26, 2011. The said judgment became final and conclusive on July 18, 2013.

(Seoul Northern District Court 201Gahap3927, hereinafter the above case is referred to as "a separate case", and the above final judgment is referred to as "a separate final judgment". (e)

On the other hand, the plaintiff made a qualified acceptance on D's inherited property on April 21, 2006.

Seoul Family Court 2006Ra2016). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the qualified acceptance was made by the time the fact-finding proceedings are concluded.