1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant’s argument as to this case, since the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. From March 9, 1994 to March 10, 2016, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 3,585,884 won to the Defendant, since the Plaintiff used the attached Table 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 18 square meters of appraisal among the attached Table 18, 20, 200 square meters of land in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (the instant traffic route) for the amount equivalent to the rent, which is equivalent to the rent from March 11, 2006 to March 10, 201.

The claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 3,585,884 is offset against the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 5,734,00, which was admitted in the judgment of the first instance.

B. We examine the judgment, and the fact that the plaintiff used the passage of this case before the defendant installs a block for the passage of this case is not a dispute between the parties.

However, in light of the absence of dispute between the parties or the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the on-site inspection by the court of the trial, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff made unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the road of this case by exclusively or exclusively using the road of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Even if the Plaintiff’s exclusive possession of the entire passage of this case is recognized, the Defendant calculated the amount equivalent to the rent of the road of this case according to the results of the rent appraisal on G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 355 square meters, which is a neighboring land. The said rent appraisal result cannot be invoked as it is for the passage of this case due to a change in its land category, size, etc.

C. The defendant's argument of offset is with merit.