1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On June 27, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on July 6, 201, for land C (hereinafter “instant land”).

On October 23, 2007, the Defendant completed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on October 26, 2007 on D land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the non-contentious facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground of claim as a whole, asserts that since the defendant occupied the land of this case owned by the plaintiff without permission, the plaintiff has a duty to return the rent party to the plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the original Defendant, comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions in the evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 3 as well as the overall purport of pleadings, that is, the access road was installed in part of the instant land and the Defendant’s land adjacent thereto around 2006, prior to the successful bid, and that the Plaintiff installed a gate in the middle of the road, which is the boundary of the instant land and the Defendant’s land, on October 27, 2011. Since the above gate was installed, the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, was not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant exclusively occupied and used the instant land, which is the Plaintiff’s ownership, on the sole basis of the fact that the above pents exceeded the above pents, as alleged by the Defendant, was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant exclusively occupied and used the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.