A. Of the land size of 660 square meters in Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun C, Chungcheongnam-gun, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 15, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8.

A. On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired ownership on the ground of “sale on June 15, 2016,” with respect to the land of 660 square meters in Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”). B. On September 12, 2006, the Defendant acquired ownership on the ground of “sale on August 14, 2006, 383 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) adjacent to the instant land on the ground of “sale on August 14, 2006.”

C. Meanwhile, among the instant land, there is a number of trees owned by the Defendant and a steel fence on the ground of 25 square meters on the part (B) of the attached Form No. 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, and 19, connected in sequence each point in the attached Form No. 19, 18, 17, 1

(2) The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows: (a) The above trees are “the trees of this case”; (b) the steel pents are “the instant pents”; and (c) the part of the land affected by the Defendant is “the part of the affected land”; and (d) the part of the land affected by the said Defendant is not disputed; (b) Gap evidence No. 1 (including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation; and (d) the purport

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the claim for collection, removal, and delivery of land, the defendant owned the trees of this case and pents on the ground of the land of this case, occupied the part of the affected land, and obstructed the plaintiff's exercise of ownership. Thus, the defendant is obligated to collect the trees of this case from the plaintiff, remove the pents of this case, and deliver the part of the affected land to the plaintiff.

B. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment, according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, without any legal ground, occupied and used the part of the land in question that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land from August 22, 2016, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the rent, and thereby, was recognized to have incurred loss to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff is on June 15, 2016).