1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 236,923,00 and KRW 200,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,923,00 from October 5, 2018, and KRW 36,923,00.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 28, 1985, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance by consultation and division on May 22, 1984 with respect to the land indicated in the [Attachment 1] List (based on the present lot number standard, and on August 26, 2009, land of C forest land 14,422 square meters in Pakistan-si, Pakistan-si, Pakistan-si on August 26, 2009; hereinafter “instant land”).

B. B. Before the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant land, the Defendant, as shown in the attached Table 2 appraisal drawings, has installed traffic signs, wire-made nets, the gathering area of sick power, miter, and the Army stone stone, etc. (hereinafter “instant facilities”) among the instant land, and has reached the present time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2, the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Director of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant installed the instant facilities and occupied the entire land of this case (14,422 square meters), the Plaintiff should return a reasonable rent for the instant land to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

In this regard, the Defendant asserts that since the place where the instant facilities are installed is 1,237 square meters among the instant land, the part occupied by the Defendant among the instant land should be limited to the part where the instant facilities are installed, and that unjust enrichment should also be limited to the amount equivalent to the rent on the said part.

B. Possession of the object resulting from the return of unjust enrichment refers to the objective relationship that appears to have a factual control over a person under the concept of society, and in order to say that the object is de facto control, it does not necessarily mean that the object is physically and practically controlled, but should be determined in conformity with the concept of society by taking into account the time and spatial relationship with the object, the principal right relationship, the possibility of control of another person, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 98Da58924 delivered on March 23, 1999.