1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 3,500,652 as well as 5% per annum from August 6, 2016 to December 21, 2016;

1. The Plaintiff acquired ownership of B forest land 6,942 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) on August 19, 2004. The Defendant, from around 1978 to around 82, 1978, installed military facilities (hereinafter “military facilities of this case”) in each of the above parts of the instant forest land (hereinafter “the instant military facilities”) in order to connect each point of (a) traffic subparagraph (a) to the traffic of the instant forest and each point of (b) 566 square meters, 25, 83 through 86, 27, 26, 25, and 25 in sequence, connected each point of (b) 22 square meters, 31, 87 through 90, 33, 32, and 31 square meters in order to connect each point of (c) the instant military facilities (hereinafter “the instant military facilities”) and without any title, did not possess any dispute between the parties concerned, or did not present the entire evidence and the purport of each of subparagraph 14 through 5.

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, without a legitimate authority, obtained the profit from the use of the military installation of the military installation of this case in the land of this case while occupying and using the military installation of this case, and thereby causes damage equivalent to the amount to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the military installations of this case established by the Defendant without permission are extensively extended to the entire forest of this case and are set up as a restricted protection area under the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act, and the Plaintiff is in a state in which the Plaintiff is entirely unable to use the forest of this case. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to return unjust enrichment due to the possession and

In addition to the above-mentioned facts, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the whole purport of the arguments, the following circumstances, i.e., ①., the above-mentioned facts.