The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that the amount of profit to be returned by the defendant to the plaintiff is the amount equivalent to the rent for the land of this case, on the premise that the plaintiff, defendant, E, I, and K is obligated to return the same amount of profit to the plaintiff, on the ground that each house owner, including the plaintiff, used as access roads to the land of this case to contribute to the land of this case, and the house of this case, which is owned by the defendant, consists of 15 households. The defendant obtained profit by allowing the tenant of this case to occupy and use the land of this case as the only access roads leading to the land of this case and suffered loss equivalent to the same amount.

2. The possession refers to the objective relationship that appears to belong to the factual control of a person under the social norms. At this time, the factual control is not necessarily limited to the physical and practical control of an object, but should be determined in accordance with the concept of society by taking into account the time and spatial relationship with the object, the relationship between the object and the principal right, the possibility of avoiding another person’s control, etc. However, in order to be in an objective relationship that belongs to such factual control, at least to exclude another person’s interference should be determined.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 73Da923, Jul. 16, 1974; 2013Da84971, Jan. 29, 2015). Examining the judgment of the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, even if based on the factual basis recognized by the lower court, the instant land is not only the Defendant or its lessee, but also the said land.