2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s party interest and legal representative, C, and D own 1/3 shares of each of the instant land.

B. Around March 2015, the Defendant received a written consent to land use from C, and around that time, continued the agricultural street packaging project that packages part of the instant land into a road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant is not all co-owners, but only one of them obtain the consent of land use. C also prepares a written consent of land use without knowing the boundary of the land, and it is not effective in the consent. Thus, the defendant illegally occupies the land of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the road installed on the instant land to the Plaintiff, deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, and pay 1,875,000 won for unjust enrichment for the last ten years, as well as damages for delay.

B. In light of the following circumstances, i.e., management of the instant land through E, etc. for a long time, and the Plaintiff also seems to have known or could have known such circumstances. ② Under such circumstances, the Plaintiff and C can be deemed to have given prior consent to the agricultural street packaging business covering part of the instant land as a road by preparing and submitting a written consent to land use to the Defendant. The Plaintiff and C cannot immediately be deemed as null and void on the ground that there was an error in the boundary of the land subject to the consent at the time. ③ It is doubtful whether the Plaintiff, other than C, consents to the above agricultural street packaging business, considering the timing, purpose, and outcome of the above agricultural street packaging business, and the Plaintiff’s attitude visible in this law.