(a) 3,324,00 won and the rate of 15% per annum from December 17, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

A. On September 9, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased 3,126 square meters of land B in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

나. 피고는 1989년경 이전부터 이 사건 토지 중 별지도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 1,의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㈎부분 600㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 화단’이라 한다)를 화단으로 점유, 사용하며 관리하고 있다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 6, Eul's 1 through 3, the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the director of the Korea Land Information Corporation, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of obligation of return of unjust enrichment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant occupied and used the chemical team of this case without any legal grounds, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the rent, and thereby resulting in damage equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff as the owner.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to return this to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The defendant's assertion on the waiver of exclusive use and benefit right of the land of this case is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the former owner of the land of this case renounced exclusive use and benefit right of this case by providing that the former owner of the land of this case can use the latter part of the national highway No. 39 as the latter owner of the national highway, and the plaintiff also purchased the land of this case with the knowledge that such restriction is land, and thus, the former owner cannot exercise exclusive use and benefit right of this part, and therefore, the latter part cannot be claimed as a claim for return of unjust enrichment. However, the video of the evidence No. 3 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the former owner renounced exclusive use and benefit right of this case as to the latter part

3. Scope of return of unjust enrichment

A. Furthermore, the defendant.