1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the defendant Kim Jong-si appeal are dismissed, respectively.

2. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff out of the appeal costs.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is the same as that of the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts on the basis of land set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4, Defendant Gyeong-do is the road management agency established on the land set up on the land set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4, and it is deemed that Defendant Gyeong-do obtained profit equivalent to the rent, and that the Plaintiff suffered loss equivalent to the same amount. Thus, Defendant Gyeong-do is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of each of the above land to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, as to the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by Defendant Gyeongnam-do, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate in ordinary cases is equivalent to the rent for the real estate. According to the result of the entrustment of rent from the court of first instance as of August 28, 2014 to the Lee Won-won appraisal corporation as of August 15, 2006 to November 14, 201, the sum of rent for the portion of land 1 through 4 has been recognized as of 28,509,360, and eventually, the sum of unjust enrichment to be returned by Defendant Gyeongnam-do is 28,509,360 won and damages for delay (the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to return unjust enrichment from the occupancy and use of land 1 through 4). However, the plaintiff's claim for rent for the first instance as of November 15, 2006 to the 14th appraisal corporation as of November 2011 is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff's claim for rent for land 215.