1. The Defendant’s KRW 413,830 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 10, 2016 to November 29, 2017.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The main body of the instant safety defense is the Ministry of National Defense (No. 26 of the Army-gun), who performed drainage works at the time of B construction in 1994, and thus, the Defendant was incorporated into the said drainage route on the premise that the Defendant performed the said drainage system, and the Plaintiff owned a part of the share (No. 1/2 shares), and the State, not the Defendant, who made unjust enrichment equivalent to land usage fees for 1,339 square meters for land land (hereinafter “instant land”).

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as a lawsuit against a non-qualified person.

B. In a lawsuit for performance of judgment, a person who asserts that he/she has the right to standing to sue, and the person who has asserted as the person responsible for performance has the standing to sue.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797 delivered on June 14, 1994). In light of the above legal principles, insofar as the Plaintiff asserted that the subject who occupied and used the instant land and obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the land usage fee is the Defendant, the Defendant has the standing to be the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the above principal safety is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The summary of the plaintiff's claim is that the defendant, without any legal ground from 1994, has obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to land usage fees by incorporating the land in this case into the number attached to the D reservoir managed by the defendant, and occupying and using it. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, who is the right holder of 1/2 of the land in this case, who is the right holder of 1/2 of the land in this case, to pay 78,260,000 won, which is equivalent to the land usage fees accrued from April 23, 2006, and delay damages therefor. (2) The land in this case is divided into a drainage system at the time of construction works conducted B in 194, and is

D The management entity of the reservoir and its affiliated drainage route is the defendant.

The drainage route for which the land of this case was incorporated is connected to the reservoir above.