1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2, 1997, a river of 277 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si was designated as a small river by public notice No. 75 on October 2, 1997. The land was divided on November 5, 1998, and the land in this case is part of the divided land.

B. After the designation of a small river as of October 2, 1997, the Defendant installed a bank on the instant land, and occupied and managed it up to now, and used it as a slope that constitutes a small river embankment at Namyang-si, Namyang-si (a sloped land leading to the river from the bank to the river).

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land through a compulsory auction on June 3, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 2 and 4 (including various numbers for each type of evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant occupies and uses the land of this case as a small river bank from October 2, 1997 to the small river bank. Since the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case through a compulsory auction on June 3, 2009, the defendant, who occupies and uses the land of this case without any legal ground, is obligated to return to the plaintiff the profit from the possession and use after the date of acquisition of ownership, as unjust enrichment.

3. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who gains a profit from another’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes loss to the other person shall return such profit.” As such, a person who claims the return of unjust enrichment shall assert and prove that there is “damage.” In the case of an illegal possession of real estate, the owner of the real estate who has been illegally occupied may seek compensation for damages equivalent to the rent or return of unjust enrichment from the illegal occupant. However, even if there was no illegal possession, if there was no special circumstance that there was no benefit equivalent to the rent or other income from the owner of the real estate.