1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 29, 2003, E, the husband of the Plaintiff, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance by consultation or division with respect to C Forest land 2,060 square meters (hereinafter “C land”) and D 347 square meters (hereinafter “D land”).

B. On September 10, 2009, E donated D land to the Plaintiff, a spouse, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 11, 2009. On April 9, 2015, E donated 1/2 shares out of C land to the Plaintiff, a spouse, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 10, 2015.

C. On January 24, 2011, the Defendant purchased G field 615 square meters (hereinafter “G land”) from F in Tong-si in the vicinity of land C from F, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on January 26, 201.

C Of the land, there is a detailed package of “A” part of the attached Form 1 through 28, and 443 square meters in order to connect each point of “A” among the land, which is a concrete package (hereinafter “instant present state road”), and the Defendant uses the instant present state road to enter G land in a meritorious deed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff is a co-owner who owns 1/2 shares in the current status road of this case, and seek a refund of unjust enrichment equivalent to the usage fees for the delivery of the present status road of this case and the use of the present status road by jointly-owned act against the Defendant using the present status road without permission.

In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have exclusively occupied the current status of the instant case to the extent that he/she is excluded from the Plaintiff’s possession, by comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above, the evidence mentioned above, the evidence described in Nos. 5, 6, 7, and Eul’s evidence No. 6 (including the serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1 The current status of the instant case was already used as a road before the Plaintiff and the Defendant acquired ownership, and the Defendant had access to G land.