The judgment below

Among them, the part on the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is the Chuncheon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 136(4) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The court shall give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions on the legal matters which are clearly deemed to be excessive to the parties.” Thus, in the case where there are legal matters that are clearly unreasonable due to negligence or misunderstanding by the parties, or where there is any inconsistency or uncertainty in view of the parties’ arguments from a legal point of view, the court shall actively exercise its right of explanation and give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions, and in the case of neglect of this,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da83599, Feb. 11, 2010). 2. The record reveals the following facts.

From April 23, 2009, the Defendant owned from around 19, 951 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”). From around April 23, 2009, the Defendant owned 84, 85, 86, 36, 37, 88, 34, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 83, 10, and 84 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff in line with the indication of drawings in attached Form 84, 85, 86, 36, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 40, 82, 83, 86, 86, 10, and 96 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “one house in this case”). The Defendant owned each of the instant land without permission in order to connect the same drawings.

B. Meanwhile, the co-defendant D of the lower court owned 65 square meters of a house of 65 square meters on the ground section of the “three-dimensional” on the part of the instant land (hereinafter “second house”) connected in order to each point of 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 64 of the said drawings among the instant land before January 1, 2003, and owned 24, 25, 26, 27, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 35, 34, 33, and 24 of the said drawings.