1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. The annexed map No. 1, 2, 2. is indicated among the 5,256 square meters of the forest land in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff purchased the forest land of this case from D on December 2, 199 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 3, 199.

B. The Defendant installed concrete structures (hereinafter “instant structure”) on the key issues of the instant forest among the forest land, and owned and used them.

C. The pertinent rent of KRW 12,800 (any rent with respect to 100 square meters, including the instant key part) x 62 square meters x 100 square meters according to the result of a request for appraisal of rent by this Court, KRW 7,936, from September 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016, among the instant forest land, is the appropriate rent of KRW 380 (any rent with respect to 100 square meters, including the instant key part) x 62 square meters x 100 square meters according to the result of a request for appraisal of rent by the court of this case on January 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5; Eul evidence Nos. 1; Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8; each video Nos. 6, 7, and 8; the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal of rent to the Japanese appraisal corporation; the purport of the

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant structure and deliver the instant part of the forest land owned by the Plaintiff, and to return the amount equivalent to the rent to unjust enrichment, as it interferes with the Plaintiff’s ownership and gains profit equivalent to the rent, and thereby, causes damages to the Defendant equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant structure to the Plaintiff, deliver the instant part of the forest land to the Plaintiff, and return the rent to the

In regard to the scope of return of unjust enrichment, the point at which the Defendant occupied the instant part is unclear; however, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff had installed the instant structure before September 1, 2013 seeking return of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the Defendant removed the instant structure from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2016, which is the rent equivalent to the Plaintiff from September 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016.