토지인도
1. With respect to the monetary payment in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant exceeding the amount ordered under the following paragraph (2).
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the case that the defendant newly claims in this court in accordance with the third and fourth of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case that the defendant uses the first to the fourth and fourth of the judgment as follows, and therefore, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
“(3) Furthermore, regarding the scope of unjust enrichment that the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s possession or use of the pertinent land. The possessor’s possession is presumed to have been bona fide (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act); the possessor in good faith is liable to acquire the negligence of the possession (Article 201(1) of the Civil Act); the possessor in good faith is liable to return the value within the extent of the benefit he/she has received is deemed to have accrued (Article 748(1) of the Civil Act); when the possessor in good faith loses the beneficiary, he/she shall be deemed to be the malicious beneficiary from the time the lawsuit was brought to the lawsuit and shall compensate the Plaintiff for any loss incurred with interest added thereto (Articles 749(2) and 748(2) of the Civil Act). In addition to the overall purport of the arguments, the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to have filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on July 9, 2015 on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations for acquisition of ownership on the instant land; the judgment against the Plaintiff’s loss.