1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the conjunctive claim against the Plaintiff is expanded by this court.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff filed a claim for damages on the ground of unauthorized occupation and use of the plaintiff's aquaculture in the first instance court, and the plaintiff filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in this court. The plaintiff's claim is not the identity of the basis of the claim between the two claims, and it constitutes a means of attack and defense by the deadline

Plaintiff

The claim for damages and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground of the illegal occupation or use of the ownership farm shall be based on the same factual basis, but there is no difference in the basis of the claim.

The plaintiff's request for change of claim and cause of claim is legitimate.

Since the fact that the Plaintiff already filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment on the basis of the same factual basis from the first instance court to the same factual basis is apparent in the record, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground of the illegal occupation and use of the Plaintiff’s aquaculture should be deemed as a means of attack and defense.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s primary and primary claim for return of unjust enrichment is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s primary and primary claim for return of unjust enrichment is identical to the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment, it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit.

The fact that the Plaintiff filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or the rent from June 15, 2010 to June 14, 2016 against the Defendant, as Changwon District Court Decision 2015Da23788, on the ground that the Defendant occupied or occupied the Plaintiff’s share in the instant aquaculture, from June 15, 2010 to June 14, 2016, is obvious to this court. However, the Plaintiff filed a claim for unjust enrichment from June 15, 2016, which was the said period, after the said period. As such, it is apparent in itself that the Plaintiff filed a claim for unjust enrichment from June 20, 2017.