1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall:

(a) An entry (attached Form) shall be made to the designated parties.

1. On March 10, 1962, I purchased the instant land on March 10, 1962 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 20, 192. On September 17, 1996, I became co-inheritors according to the pertinent shares indicated in E, F, C, G, and H [Attached] by the designated parties D and children, who were wife D and children, while I died on September 17, 1996.

On the other hand, on May 29, 1996, the Plaintiff purchased the entire share transfer registration on June 5, 1996 between K and M on the purchase of 929 square meters and 807 square meters and 569 square meters prior to L prior to M (hereinafter collectively referred to as “K land, etc.”) from the previous Yju-gun, Jeon-gun, Jeonju-gun, and three other co-owners, and completed the entire share transfer registration on May 29, 196. The instant land is located between K and M, and L land is adjacent to M.

After that, the Plaintiff occupied and cultivated the instant land along with K, etc., and the rent for the instant land from March 1, 2010 to February 29, 2020 is KRW 585,570 in total, and KRW 6,208 in March 1, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, the result of entrustment of appraisal of rent, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff purchased and cultivated K land, etc. used as an orchard, and died, and cultivated it as dry field. Since the instant land was used as part of the orchard, the Plaintiff, N et al., N et al., N et al., and the Plaintiff et al. purchased and occupied the instant land for not less than 20 years without knowing the existence of the instant land, and purchased it with knowledge that it was included in the instant land and purchased it for not less than 20 years, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sought the implementation of the procedure for the ownership transfer registration on the instant land due to the completion of acquisition by prescription. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not have occupied the instant land as its owner’s intention, and thus, the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the transfer and rent of the instant

(b).