1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case in the public sale procedure and paid the sales price in full. The Plaintiff became the owner of the land of this case, which was owned by Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Din Construction”) (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendants”) are co-owners of multi-household houses on the ground D, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”) adjacent to the instant land.

C. The Defendants are passing over the land of this case since before the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 Facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the dispute, entries and shapes of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants occupied the instant land by opening and passing through a private road on the instant land, which is owned by the Plaintiff without any legal ground. Therefore, the Defendants asserted that the amount equivalent to the rent of the instant land calculated at the ratio of KRW 248,333 per month, each of the Plaintiff is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment.

B. We examine the judgment as to whether the Defendants occupied the land of this case. As seen above, it is insufficient to view that the Defendants occupied the land of this case solely on the ground that the Defendants passed over the land of this case. There is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendants occupied the land of this case due to the construction of a road on the land of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premised on this premise is without merit, and there is no need to further examine the remainder of the land.

C. The original owner of land is partly entitled to waive the exclusive and exclusive use right, even if the Defendants’ possession of the instant land is recognized.