1. Of the part regarding the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, 1,897.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "The land of this case is used as a passage, and the defendant uses the land of this case as an access road to the neighboring building of this case" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance in Part 20 of the judgment, "However, the defendant, the owner of the neighboring building of this case, is using the land of this case jointly with a third party, who is the owner of the neighboring building of this case, as a passage, etc., and is using the land of this case owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, the owner of F real estate, uses the land of this case for the purpose of parking lot, etc., part of the land of this case for the purpose of parking lot, etc." of Part 4 to Part 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited

2. Parts in height:

A. Determination as to the main claim

(1) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant without authority occupied and used the instant land owned by the Plaintiff as the passage of the adjoining building of this case, etc., and the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the profit of the instant land as unjust enrichment

r. The amount of profit arising from the possession and use of real estate is ordinarily equivalent to the rent, and if several persons jointly use another person's property without any legal cause, it is reasonable to regard the obligation to return unjust enrichment as an indivisible obligation in which each debtor is liable to perform the entire obligation as an indivisible obligation, unless there are special circumstances.

However, the Defendant, the owner of the adjoining building of this case, jointly uses the land of this case owned by the Plaintiff as a passage to the land of this case, etc., and the Plaintiff, the owner of F real estate, is also using the land of this case for the purpose of parking lots, etc. as seen earlier. The Defendant jointly used the land of this case with the owner