1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 1970, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land listed in paragraph (1) of the annexed Table No. 1, as to the land listed in the annexed Table No. 2, on December 31, 1973.

B. On November 24, 1983, the Deceased died, and on November 24, 1983, the deceased succeeded to each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) in the proportion of 3/12 of the wife C, 3/12 of the Plaintiff, who is a child, and the network D, network E, and F, who is a child, and at the rate of 2/12 of the Plaintiff.

C. On February 2, 2008, the deceased on February 2, 2008, G, the husband, H, and I inherited the network D’s share in each of the instant land in proportion to 2/7 of each of the two-thirds. The deceased on August 10, 2010 and the deceased on August 10, 201, the mother C succeeded to the network E’s share in each of the instant land.

Plaintiff F GHI’s share 98/252 7/252 33/252 22/252 22/252 22/252

D. On March 18, 2012, the deceased on March 18, 2012, the deceased Plaintiff and F, a child, inherited the shares of the deceased C and the deceased E in proportion to 1/3 of each of the instant land. G, a fraud, succeeded to the shares of the deceased C and the deceased E in proportion to 3/21 of G, H, and I, a fraud, inherited the shares of the deceased C and the deceased E in proportion to 2/21 of each of the instant land.

As a result, the ownership relationship of each land of this case is as listed below.

E. The land category of the instant case was changed from January 10, 1977 to “road”, and the Defendant occupied and used each of the instant land as a road from around that time until that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including the serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant occupied and used each of the lands of this case as a road, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the rent without any legal cause, and causing damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff, who is a co-owner of the above lands. Thus, the defendant shall be deemed to have suffered damages.