1. As to the Defendant (Counterclaim) in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, including the main claim extended at the trial.

1. The reasons why our court should explain this part of the judgment on the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B, C, and D are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. We examine the legitimacy of the claim for removal, removal, and return of unjust enrichment in the principal lawsuit of this case ex officio. We examine the legitimacy of the claim for removal, removal, and return of unjust enrichment.

A. The land of this case is the Plaintiff’s property owned by the Plaintiff, and the head of Yangyang-gun, the representative of the Plaintiff, may order the person who installed the facilities on the land without any justifiable reason to remove or remove the facilities pursuant to Article 83 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, and if he/she fails to comply with the order, he/she may remove the facilities in accordance with the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act. Thus, if the procedures for vicarious administrative execution can be followed, it is not permissible to separately seek removal or removal by means of civil procedure.

(See Supreme Court Decision 99Da18909 delivered on May 12, 2000, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1122 delivered on June 11, 2009, etc.). Therefore, the claim for removal and removal among the principal lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. Under Articles 80, 81, and 97(2) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, the head of Yangyang-gun, the Plaintiff’s representative, may collect indemnity from the person who occupies or uses the instant land without permission. If the person who occupies or uses the instant land does not pay indemnity, the indemnity can be collected in accordance with the example of disposition on default under Article 28 of the Local Tax Act. As such, the indemnity arising from the illegal occupancy or use of the instant land can be collected by means of disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, which is the more convenient procedure of the administrative agency. As such, there is no need to permit the realization of rights by means of civil procedure, such as a request for return of unjust enrichment.

Therefore, this is applicable.