1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 18,986,00 per annum from September 26, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and

1. The occurrence of a claim for return of unjust gains;

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff is the owner of the land indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant is possessing the instant land as part of B, and there is no dispute between the parties.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to return the profit gained by using the land of this case to the plaintiff.

B. Determination as to the Defendant’s argument 1) The former owner of the instant land, who is the Plaintiff’s father, renounced the right to exclusive use and profit-making of the instant land in order to increase the value and utility of the adjoining land. D, the Plaintiff’s father, acquired the ownership of the instant land by well-known the aforementioned facts, and the Plaintiff comprehensively succeeded to the instant land through an agreement to allow inheritance. Therefore, even if the instant land is used as part of B, no damage may be caused to the Plaintiff. (2) If a land owner directly provided the relevant land as a road to its neighboring residents or the general public, or if it is deemed that he/she given the right to exclusive use and profit-making of the said land to the general public by providing it as a road, or if it is deemed that he/she given the right to exclusive use and profit-making of the said land, the circumstance and scale of the ownership of the relevant land by dividing it in accordance with the urban planning, the location and nature of the relevant land used as a road, the surrounding environment, etc., and the remaining land to the extent of effective use and profit-making.

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu16997 Decided July 11, 1989 and Supreme Court Decision 24 June 201.