1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From May 21, 1987, the Plaintiff owned the instant forest.

B. The Seoul Regional Land Management Office, under the Defendant’s control, established C Tunnels (hereinafter “instant tunnel”) on the underground of the instant forest land while carrying out construction works on the said expressway as the business management agency of the D Private Investment Project.

C. On November 10, 2005, the Defendant acquired from the Plaintiff about D Corporation 3,306/22,257 shares of 3,306/22, and 257 shares in the land of this case, but did not compensate for the forest of this case.

The instant tunnel is located 24 to 50 meters underground from the ground of the instant forest, and the entrance of the instant tunnel is 161 meters away from the instant forest, and the area of the part passing through the instant tunnel among the forest land is 1,078 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) purchased the instant forest to use as a site for electric source housing. Since the Defendant, without permission, installed the instant forest on the ground of the instant forest, thereby seriously infringing on the use value and exchange value of the instant forest, the Defendant is obligated to immediately remove the instant forest and deliver the portion of the instant forest to the Plaintiff. 2) As the Defendant occupied the instant forest without permission, thereby gaining unjust enrichment, and incurred losses to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 10,449,00 for the past five years and KRW 14,417 per month until the removal of the instant forest.

B. 1) The ownership of land extends to the upper part of the land within the scope of a legitimate interest (Article 212 of the Civil Act). Here, the scope of “justifiable interest” cannot be set up uniformly and abstractly, and considering the situation, location, etc. of the formation of individual land.