1. The portion of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and the ancillary claim in the primary claim for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

1. In the first instance court’s judgment, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for restitution of unjust enrichment from January 1, 200 to December 31, 2014, and for restitution of unjust enrichment from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2014. The court of first instance dismissed the claim for removal of thoriumium in the number of primary claims, and accepted the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment from the primary claims.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the subject of this Court's judgment is limited to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and the ancillary claim.

2. The reasoning of this court’s explanation by the court of first instance is as stated in Articles 1 and 20 of the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the dismissal of the judgment by the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is also accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2, Chapter 17, 18 "Removal of Cyllium" and Chapter 2 through 12 shall be deleted.

In Part 3, under the first sentence, the Defendant’s assertion that “A” is not obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant obtained the consent of land use from the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate, and the neighboring farmland, for the construction of drainage channels around 2003 to 204. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.”

Part 3: from Part 20 to Part 4, "Calculation" shall be deemed to be "A," respectively.

Part 4: The following shall be added to Part 4:

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant has expired by prescription in accordance with Article 82 (2) of the Local Finance Act as a right to the local government for the purpose of paying money.