Background
Our client, a family clan (jongjung), owns two forest plots in northern Gyeonggi Province. Since before October 2015 the State had used the land for military training, installing trenches, bunkers, and tank positions without paying the clan anything.
Facilities covered 1,402㎡ of the first plot's 4,244㎡ and 1,185㎡ of the second plot's 2,743㎡. Changchun represented the clan in separate suits against the State for each plot, seeking rent as unjust enrichment, removal of the facilities, and return of the land.
What Was at Stake
The State argued that it occupied only the areas where facilities stood, that as a good-faith possessor it owed no interest, and that because the facilities served a public purpose it could not be compelled to remove them.
How Changchun Helped
The court accepted the plaintiff's arguments:
Occupation of the entire plot. Facilities covered over 30-40% of each plot and were scattered throughout, leaving the clan unable to use the land, and the State had no removal plans.
Bad-faith possession. The land registry showed the State knew the land was not its own, so it owed interest on the appraised rent.
Removal and return. Military installation laws do not restrict an owner's right to remove interference.
Outcome
In June 2023 the first-instance court granted the full unjust-enrichment claim for the first plot: KRW 61,683,105 in rent plus KRW 8,044,802 in interest, totaling KRW 69,727,907. In September 2023 it awarded KRW 52,991,921 for the second plot (KRW 45,806,293 in rent plus KRW 7,185,628 in interest). Both judgments ordered removal of the facilities and return of the land, with provisional enforceability.
Claims for the cost of restoring the land were dismissed, as the loss had not yet materialized in the first case and was time-barred in the second. The clan bore one-third of the costs in the first case and three-fifths in the second.
Even land used by the State for public purposes can yield rent for the whole plot and an order to vacate. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.)