Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal

A. The lower court calculated the amount of unjust enrichment that the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) based on the status of “forest” in which I and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) had been using the land at the time of commencing and succeeding the occupation of each of the instant land.

B. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Each Supreme Court precedent cited in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff has different cases and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's appeal

A. In full view of the circumstances revealed in the record, the lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to return unjust enrichment on the ground that the Defendant occupied the entire land of this case.

As to the Defendant’s assertion of prescriptive acquisition, it is reasonable to view that I acquired possession of each of the lands of this case on the basis of the title which appears to have no intention to own in its nature in occupying each of the lands of this case, or did not have an intention to occupy each of the lands of this case by rejecting the Plaintiff’s ownership, and rejected this determination, based on the reversal of the presumption of possession with autonomy.

B. In light of the records, the court below's conclusion is acceptable despite some inappropriate points in its reasoning.

In the lower judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the reversal of presumption of possession with autonomy.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).