1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 10, 1978 with respect to B-road B (hereinafter “instant land”) on March 10, 1978.

B. On June 10, 1974, the instant land was determined as urban planning facilities by the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s decision to modify CD urban planning (financial expenses) by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. On December 30, 1974, the instant land was divided into E land at Jeju, and the land category was changed from before to “road” at the same time.

C. The Defendant has occupied and managed the instant land as a road since the land category was changed to a road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the land of this case to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land of this case, inasmuch as the defendant gains profit by occupying and using the land of this case by offering it as a passage to the general public and thereby causes loss to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

Furthermore, we examine the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned by the defendant.

In ordinary, the profit gained by occupying another person’s land is equivalent to the rent. According to the appraisal result by the appraiser H of the first instance trial, the sum of the rent for the instant land from May 18, 2011 to November 18, 2016 seeking the payment of the Plaintiff based on the current status of use (hereinafter “former status”) as at the time the instant road is to be incorporated into the road is recognized as constituting 15,187,271, and the rent after November 18, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant’s defense against the Plaintiff is reasonable since March 17, 2017, following the date when the Defendant served the Defendant with a copy of the claim and the application form for modification of the purpose and cause of the claim in this case.