1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 20, 1971, the ownership transfer registration was completed on July 31, 1971 with respect to C Forest land 20,430 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) on the ground of sale and purchase on July 20, 1971, and on May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff, a spouse of D, was completed on May 2, 2017.

B. At present, among the forest land in this case, concrete packaging is made on the ground of partial 453 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) connected with each point of the annexed No. 1-57 and 1 in sequence, among the forest land in this case, and sewage pipes are laid underground.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal to the female branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion without permission is that the defendant occupies the land of this case by packing concrete on the ground of the land of this case and laying sewage pipes underground.

Accordingly, not only the land of this case 1 but also the land of this case 1 to 37, and 1 as indicated in the annexed drawing No. 2 among the forest land of this case, the Plaintiff became unable to use part 871 square meters (hereinafter “the land No. 2 of this case”) for its intended purpose.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove to the Plaintiff concrete packaging and its underground sewage pipe each of the instant land 1 and deliver the instant land 1 to the Plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the instant land 1 and 2.

3. The evidence alone submitted to the court below for the determination that the defendant contained concrete packaging on the ground of the land No. 1 of this case and laid the sewage pipe underground.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant occupies the land of this case, and otherwise there is no evidence to prove that the defendant occupies the land of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion premised on this cannot be accepted without further review.

4. Conclusion.