1. As to KRW 93,193,00 and KRW 79,138,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from January 14, 2017 to April 6, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff received a donation of 11-6 forest land of 2479 square meters in Dobong-dong, Dobong-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 1, 1949.

B. On December 29, 1980, the Defendant divided the instant real estate into a road with the same 282-219 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the land before the said subdivision, and changed the category of the instant real estate into a road. Around that time, the Defendant packaged the instant real estate into a asphalt.

C. The instant real estate has been used from 1970 to 1970 as Dobongsan.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 6 and video (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the defendant occupied and used the real estate of this case by packing the real estate of this case without any legal ground and providing it for the passage of the general public. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered profit equivalent to the amount of rent corresponding to the area, and thereby suffered loss equivalent to the amount of the above amount.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiff.

B. In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire argument as a result of appraiser A’s appraisal, the amount equivalent to the rent from May 9, 2011 to May 8, 2016 pertaining to the instant real estate is recognized to have been 79,138,000, and the subsequent rent is confirmed to have been KRW 1,369,00 per month. As such, the amount equivalent to the rent from May 9, 201 to March 16, 2017, which is the date of the closing of argument ( October 8, 2017), all of which would be 14,05,000 won (one hundred and thirty months).

3. The defendant's defense is asserted to the effect that the plaintiff renounced exclusive and exclusive use rights to the real estate of this case by offering it to Masan or Kinsan for the general public.

From the beginning, any private land is the first.