In light of the above legal principles, the court below held that each testimony made by the witness, kyman, and kyman together with the purport of pleading by the parties, and held that the plaintiff company allowed the defendants to use the land free of charge and construct the house on the land of this case in around 1933 in order to move the defendants, who are farmers in the vicinity of the arable land for the purpose of cultivation convenience of the farmland owned by them, and allowed them to use the land free of charge and construct the house so long. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking return of unjust enrichment is without merit. However, even if considering the contents of each testimony made by the witness, kyman, and ky and kyman as well as the purport of pleading by the parties in accordance with the record, the court below cannot find the fact that the plaintiff consented the defendants to use the land free of charge without compensation. Accordingly, the court below's appeal is reversed pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)