1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (4, 5 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. From the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership of the instant land, the Defendant: (a) installed a plastic house on the part “1” (hereinafter “the part on the instant land”) of 285 square meters connected in order to each point of the attached appraisal among the instant land; and (b) occupied and used most of the said land by cultivating it as a garden.

Therefore, from July 22, 2006 to July 21, 2016, the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to monthly rent for the instant land owned and used by the Defendant, which was 12,976,050 square meters (285 square meters x 45,530 square meters) and the amount equivalent to monthly rent for the instant land 285 square meters (285 square meters x 45,530 square meters) and the amount equivalent to the instant lawsuit from July 22, 2016 to the said delivery (285 square meters x 587 won) as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the following: (a) evidence Nos. 10-1 through 3; (b) evidence Nos. 11-1 through 3; (c) the testimony of the Z witness at the trial; (d) the testimony of the first instance and the trial witness at the trial; and (e) the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the court’s survey and a request for rent appraisal by the court of first instance from the time when the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land; (b) the Defendant installed a vinyl house in part of the instant land “A” and occupied and used the instant land by loading materials and cultivating them as a garden; and (c) the Defendant removed the vinyl house around August 2016, and thereafter did not occupy and use the said part of the instant land. (b) Meanwhile, it is examined as to the dispute between the original and the Defendant as to the area occupied and used by the Defendant in the instant land “A” part.

The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence mentioned above, are the same.