부당이득금
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) As regards KRW 85,622,00 and KRW 40,000 among them, from March 28, 2018 to the remainder of KRW 45,622.
In fact, the Plaintiff owns 26,383/31,265 shares in relation to B forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”) at the time of Pakistan, and the Defendant owns the remainder of 4,882/31,265 shares.
On the ground of 34 5,394m2 of the forest of this case, 34m2 of the forest of this case (hereinafter “each military installation of this case”) such as miter, walk, traffic, structure, operation roads, military units, etc., such as the results of the attached Table 1 appraisal in around 201, the results of the attached Table 2 appraisal in attached Form 3, the entry of the attached appraisal map and the supplemental appraisal map, and images, have been used as a military training site, etc.
[Based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the partial number of evidence Nos. 1 to 6; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 to 4, the result of the on-site verification by this court, as a result of the request for measurement and appraisal by the D Cadastral Technical Team (Appraiser E), the part of the exclusive possession of this part of the defendant's argument to the effect that the plaintiff is exclusively occupying and using the entire forest of this case by installing the military installations of this case on the land of this case and using them as a military training site, etc. The defendant asserts that the remaining part of the forest of this case other than the part on which the military installations of this case are installed is not occupied by the defendant.
Judgment
The possession of an object refers to the objective relationship that appears to be in the factual control of a person under the social concept, and to be in fact controlled, it does not necessarily mean only physical and real control over the object, but it should be determined in accordance with the social concept in consideration of the time, spatial and principal relation with the object, possibility of control of another person, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da2553 delivered on June 11, 1999). In light of this, the above-mentioned facts and the evidence mentioned above are considered as a whole.