1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 68,122 square meters of forest land B in Youngcheon-si, Gyeongcheon-do, Gyeongcheon-do, the annexed drawing indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 shall be as follows.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of transfer of ownership on January 13, 2009, the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 962, Jan. 7, 2009) received on January 13, 2009 with respect to B forest land B 68,122 square meters.

B. On October 2008, the Defendant constructed a road on the Kacheon-si Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gyeongcheon-do and engaged in the fish farming business, and occupied and used the road on the 3,000 square meters inside the ship connected each point of (a) part of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached drawing among the 68,122 square meters of adjacent Gyeongcheon-do, Gyeongcheon-do, the neighboring Plaintiff owned by the Defendant, in sequence, and in the order of 3,122 square meters of the adjacent Gyeongcheon-do.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant road”). C.

On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to extend the term of the lease to the Defendant and the instant road from August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2014; and the term of the lease to the 3,000,000 won per year; and on the termination date of the said lease, the Plaintiff agreed to extend the term of the lease to the 1 year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the road of this case was lawfully terminated due to the expiration of the lease term. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the road of this case to the plaintiff due to its restitution.

B. According to the facts of the recognition of the first claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, the Defendant, from January 13, 2009 to July 31, 2013, which was before the Plaintiff’s lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the instant road, obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent while occupying and using the instant road for passage without any title from August 1, 2015, which was after the lease contract was terminated with respect to the instant road from January 13, 2009 to August 1, 2015.