1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the court stated the "1976" of the second part of the judgment of the first instance as "the around 1976" in the same manner as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant: (a) occupied and used each real estate listed in the separate sheet without any legal cause; (b) obtained profit equivalent to the rent; and (c) incurred damage equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff; (d) barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to return the profit accrued from October 1, 2008, as sought by the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant, while occupying each real estate listed in the separate sheet until the closing date of the argument in this case, refused to return the unjust enrichment; and (c) the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff, may file a prior claim for the Defendant’s occupation due to the road closure of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, or for unjust enrichment until the expiration date of the Plaintiff’s ownership; and (b) the Defendant’s claim for the judgment as to each real estate listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the separate sheet, was asserted to have been completed by the Defendant’s possession of each real estate in peace and public performance for about twenty (20) years from around 1976 to the present.

In addition, real estate owned by another person is well aware that the possessor does not have any legal or other legal requirements that may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession.