1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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 May 13, 1919 with respect to the 1,362 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”) in Daegu Seo-gu B, Daegu-gu, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 13, 1919 at the 1/10 shares of C, D, E, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,K, and L. On March 30, 1956, G died on and around March 30, 195, the Plaintiff succeeded to the 62/1170 shares in G, M M, 11/170 shares, and N 4/1170 shares.

B. On December 16, 1976, the land prior to the subdivision was divided into B large-scale 68 square meters, O road 649 square meters, and 645 square meters in P volume.

(hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case” by aggregating each land divided shall be classified into “each land of this case,” and shall be classified in order.

On August 23, 1982, the Defendant announced a compensation plan under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss with respect to the land and obstacles in Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, which was incorporated into the S Construction Project (hereinafter “instant Project”). The land was also included in the land subject to incorporation.

From December 1, 1984 to December 17, 1984, after completing the pre-inspection period to gather opinions from interested parties, the defendant applied for authorization for the implementation plan of the urban planning project (S construction) on December 17, 1984, and received the authorization decision on October 19 of the same month. Around that time, the defendant started construction and completed construction on October 31, 1986, and has been occupied and managed until now.

E. On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff completed each registration of ownership transfer on March 30, 1956 with respect to 62/1170 shares out of each land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 3 and 8 (including, if any, various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Since the Plaintiff’s Defendant uses each of the instant lands without permission, it is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share out of each of the instant lands.

B. Defendant 1) The actual owner of each of the instant lands is UBA (hereinafter “UBA”).

J. U.S.T.