1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On October 23, 191, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on a consultation on July 20, 1991 with respect to the land listed in [Attachment 1] List 1 (1) (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. From September 2006, the Defendant installed a container and fence on the ground of the instant land as indicated in attached Table 1 List 2, and occupied the instant land by planting trees (hereinafter “instant facilities”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land, may claim for the exclusion of disturbance against the Defendant who occupies the instant land for the preservation of ownership and the exercise of rights. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant facilities to the Plaintiff, deliver the instant land, and return the profits equivalent to the profits from the possession and use of the instant land to the unjust enrichment.

B. Furthermore, as to the specific amount of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount of unjust enrichment occurred from February 19, 2012 to February 20, 2017 is KRW 7,307,400, and the amount of unjust enrichment is KRW 141,00 per month from February 21, 2017 received by the complaint of this case to February 21, 2017. (The above amount is the amount equivalent to the usage fee that can be collected where the use of administrative property among state property is permitted pursuant to Article 32 of the State Property Act and Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the amount is calculated by multiplying the annual officially assessed individual land price of this case by the rate of 50/100), and the Defendant does not specifically dispute the amount of the above unjust enrichment to the trial.