A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 189m2, 000, 000,000 square meters for F forest in Gangseo-gu, Seowon-gun, and 394m2 for O forest, and 65m2 for P forest (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Three of five septic tanks located in the area of 16 square meters in a ship (hereinafter “instant septic tank site”) connected in order to each point of 23,24,25,26, and 23 of the attached Table 1 among the 189 square meters of the 189 square meters of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F Forest, which are located in the area of 16 square meters in a ship (hereinafter “instant septic tank site”), are the septic tanks for the housing of the Appointers C, D, and E, and 367 square meters among the 394 square meters of O forest land and 65 square meters of P forest land (hereinafter “instant access site”) are used as the access road to the housing owned by the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Appointors.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance, the result of the survey and appraisal by the first instance appraiser Q, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, according to the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant and the designated parties possess and use the access road site in this case owned by the Plaintiff, thereby gaining profits therefrom.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the period of possession and use.

In addition, the designated parties C, D, and E are gaining profits from the possession and use of the land of the instant septic tank owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the period of possession and use.

The Plaintiff sought the return of unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the instant septic tank site from both the Defendant and the designated parties, but there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant and the appointed parties occupy and use the instant septic tank site.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1 is that the land in this case was provided free of charge for passage at the time when the surrounding land was developed as a multi-unit housing complex, and the Plaintiff’s housing site at the time.