1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large-scale 688 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”); the Defendant is the owner of C large-scale 90 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”); and the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land are adjacent thereto.

B. The Defendant’s land is located in a zone higher than the Plaintiff’s land, and a house is constructed on the Defendant’s land located near the boundary line of the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land. Of the Plaintiff’s land located near the boundary line of the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land, there is a axis (hereinafter “instant axis”) on the part of the Plaintiff, which connects each point of (d) and 21 square meters in sequence among the Plaintiff’s land located near the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1-1, Gap's evidence 4-6, Eul's evidence 2, the purport of whole oral argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the owner of the land adjacent to the plaintiff's land. Since the defendant occupies the land of this case owned by the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to refund the amount equivalent to the rent for the land of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 3,867,00 per month from May 20, 2016 to May 15, 2019 and the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 109,515 per month from May 16, 2019 to the delivery of the instant dispute to the Plaintiff.

B. Since the Defendant’s assertion was established on the Plaintiff’s land and acquired the Plaintiff’s ownership as it was consistent with the Plaintiff’s land, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant owned the instant land by owning the said land.

Even if the Defendant occupied the land in the dispute of this case, the Defendant, as a bona fide occupant, has the right to receive negligence pursuant to Article 201(1) of the Civil Act, and also the Plaintiff.