2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into five parts: one of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Unlike Gap evidence No. 1 (No. 2), Gap evidence No. 3 (Notice, Evidence No. 5), Eul evidence No. 6 (Consultation No. 5), Eul evidence No. 5 (Status Card), the court below's on-site inspection and appraisal of appraiser's exchange, and the previous purport of the pleading No. 2, the defendant's prior use of forest land No. 97 on December 31, 1973 as part of the Busan District Court's receipt of No. 5461, which was 197, and which was 15215/180 of the ownership transfer registration under the plaintiff's name, the defendant cannot be viewed as a legitimate use of forest No. 2, the defendant's ownership transfer registration of forest and field No. 97 on December 28, 197.

According to the above facts, the defendant without any legal ground obtains the profit of the party in the rent by occupying and using the forest of this case as the road site, and thereby causes damage to the plaintiff in the amount equivalent to his share in ownership.

However, since the defendant set up a defense of the extinctive prescription, Article 53 of the Local Finance Act provides that "the right of a local government with the objective of paying money, which is the right of payment of money, and which is a right of a local government, is not exercised for five years unless it is otherwise provided for in other Acts, the extinctive prescription expires. The same shall also apply to the right to payment of money to the local government." The purport of the defense is that the extinctive prescription period shall be five years, except where there is no reason for payment of money or where there is a provision for a shorter period of the extinctive prescription in other Acts. The plaintiff's submission of the complaint of this case to the court below on January 15, 1987 is apparent in the record. Accordingly, the right to claim for return of unjust enrichment due to possession and use of forest of this case before January 14, 1982

2. The amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the following defendant shall be calculated.

According to the result of the appraisal of the fee for the forest of this case by the appraiser of the court below, the fee for the forest of this case can be acknowledged as the same facts as the statement in the item in the item of the fee calculation statement in attached Form, and there is no counter-proof. Thus, it is evident that the Defendant calculated the sum of the fee for the forest of this case from January 15, 1982 to March 31, 1987, as the sum of the fee for the possession and use of the forest of this case by the Defendant from January 15, 1982 to March 31, 1987, as the sum of the fee for the possession and use of the forest of this case by the Plaintiff is KRW 5,95,443, as the sum of the fee for the possession period of the same detailed statement, and among them, the amount equivalent to the amount of the Plaintiff’s share in the Plaintiff’s ownership is 5,502,74 (5,074, 1687/180, and less than KRW 18380).

3. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,502,074 with unjust enrichment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remainder is dismissed without merit. Since the original judgment is partially different from this conclusion and the defendant's appeal is partially reasonable, the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Lee Jin (Presiding Judge)