1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall enter the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) in the separate sheet No. 2, among the grounds of appeal regarding C forest land 56,194m.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 3-4-1, 4-2, and the results of appraiser D’s survey and appraisal, and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the on-site verification conducted by this court.

The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 21, 1995 with respect to the well-known-gun C Forest land 56,194m (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 14, 1993, with respect to the well-known-gun E-gun, Chungcheong-gun (hereinafter “E land”), which is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 14, 1993 and operates the public pension on the E-land.

B. In around 1993, the Defendant used concrete and asphalt packaging for the instant land as a road entering the E-land in the contribution to this present year, since he/she added up concrete and asphalt packaging to a 324m square meters in Section 434m, Section 332m, Section 44m, Section 324m, Section 324m, Section 44m, and Section 324m. (hereinafter “the instant road”).

C. On the other hand, the defendant occupies a square registry of 66 meters in part of the land of this case as stated in the annexed drawing No. 2.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant uses the part of the road of this case with concrete and asphalt packaging without permission. Thus, the above concrete and asphalt packaging is removed, deliver the part of the road of this case to the plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the profits from use of the road of this case.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on the use of the road of this case and used the road of this case. Even if the above contract relationship is not recognized, the Defendant is granted the right to passage over the surrounding part of the road of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's request for removal of concrete and asphalt packaging on the part of the road of this case and the claim for removal of land are without merit.

However, the road of this case.