1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants is revoked, and the said revoked part is applicable to the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a 272m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On December 31, 2014, Defendant C purchased 1,534 square meters in Haan-gun E, Haan-gun, Haan-gun, adjacent to the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 13, 2015.

Since then, the said E- 1,534 square meters was divided into 769 square meters in Haan-gun, Haan-gun on April 8, 2015, F 220 square meters in size, G 321 square meters in size, and H 224 square meters in size.

On November 19, 2015, the land category was changed to each site for a factory on which the land category was changed (hereinafter referred to as “E”, “G land”), and the F field 220 square meters on the same day. The land category was changed to a road on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “F land.” Defendant C donated F land on December 10, 2015 to B, and the Defendants filed an application for approval of the establishment of a new factory with respect to the said E land and G land, and completed each factory building owned by Defendant B, upon obtaining approval for the establishment of a new factory from B, by filing an application for approval of the establishment of a new factory with respect to the said E land and G land.

C. The instant land and F land must enter the F land after passing through the instant land in order to enter a road packed with concrete, E land and G land in a public road.

Accordingly, the Defendants used the instant land to enter the said E land and G land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and fact-finding with the head of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the instant land. The Defendants occupied the instant land without permission by using the instant land, such as E and its ground buildings, G land, and its ground buildings via the instant land, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the rent, and thereby giving considerable damages to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion is reasonable in terms of the rent due to the possession of the instant land.