1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 29, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance by agreement division with respect to C forest land 2,060 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) on April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff donated 1/2 of the instant land to D, his/her spouse, a spouse, donated 1/2 of the instant land.

Accordingly, D completed the registration of ownership transfer for one-half of the instant land on April 10, 2015.

B. On January 24, 2011, the Defendant purchased from E the F 615 square meters in Tong-si in the vicinity of the instant land (hereinafter “F land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 26, 201.

C. Of the instant land, there is a road on the part “A” in which the attached appraisal was successively connected to each point of 1 to 28, and 1, and the part “A” is 443 square meters in size, which is a concrete package (hereinafter “instant present state road”), and the Defendant used the instant present state road to enter F land from the public service.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), the result of the verification by the court of first instance, the result of the entrustment of appraisal by the court of first instance to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a co-owner holding 1/2 shares in the current status road of this case, and the Defendant who uses the present status road of this case without permission is entitled to seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the usage fee for the delivery of the present status road of this case and the use of the present status road.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have exclusively occupied the current status of the instant case to the extent that it excludes the Plaintiff’s possession, as the owner of the said case, in full view of the aforementioned evidence and evidence as mentioned above as well as evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 through 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1. The current status of this case is the ownership of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.