1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From around 1989, the Plaintiff occupied part of B, B,379 square meters and C, C, 1,200 square meters (limited to the subsequent lot number).

B. On April 9, 1994, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to occupy and use land of 302 square meters in B, of 169 square meters in C, and of 471 square meters in total.

In the survey map attached to the application at the time, the area of the plaintiff's possession in each of the above land was stated as the area of each application.

C. The Defendant, for the five years prior to April 22, 1994, obtained permission to occupy and use the river site B and C with a period fixed from April 22, 1994 to April 21, 1999, on condition that unjust enrichment by possession and payment of future occupation fees, etc.

On April 19, 199, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for extension of the occupancy period of 471 square meters in B and C. On April 24, 1999, the Defendant permitted the occupancy period from April 24, 1999 to December 31, 2004.

E. The Plaintiff paid occupation and use fees B and C to the Defendant from 1994 to 2006.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When applying for permission to occupy and use B and C, the Plaintiff applied for permission to occupy and use with the knowledge that the Plaintiff’s occupancy area is 471 square meters according to the guidance of the employee in charge of the Defendant, and applied for permission to occupy and use the area as 471 square meters, and paid the occupancy fees calculated based on 471 square meters

However, since the actual occupancy area of the Plaintiff did not exceed 345 square meters, the Defendant is obligated to return the occupancy fee of the portion equivalent to 126 square meters (471 square meters - 345 square meters) not used by the Plaintiff among the occupancy fees received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Judgment on the cause of the claim and the defendant's defense

A. The judgment on the cause of the claim is that the Defendant permitted the use of 471 square meters inasmuch as the Plaintiff applied for occupation and use by stating the area applied for as 471 square meters, and calculated the occupancy and use fees based on the above area.

Therefore, the plaintiff actually uses all land for which permission for occupation has been granted.