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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. B, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “original owners”) completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant parcels of land around December 1966.

B. Of each of the instant lands, G, as to the shares on June 16, 2010, with respect to the shares on June 2/5, 2010, H, with respect to shares on February 1, 2010, and I, with respect to shares on February 1, 201, completed each registration of ownership transfer on February 2/5, 2012.

C. Each of the instant lands was determined as a road among urban planning facilities by public notification of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around April 1994, along with the area of 3 square meters adjacent to Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J road. Around September 2003, road construction has been completed, and is currently being used as a road until now.

The procedure for compulsory auction was initiated on February 25, 2014 with respect to each of the instant lands, and the procedure for compulsory auction was completed on March 31, 2015 by K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) awarded a successful bid and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the compulsory auction on March 31, 2015.

The land of this case was re-established on May 16, 2016, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 27, 2017 after the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid.

E. On July 26, 2017, the Plaintiff received a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for each of the instant lands infringed upon by the Defendant during the period during which K owned each of the instant lands by the former owner of the instant land, and notified the Defendant of the fact of transferring the relevant land on or before August 9, 2017 upon delegation of the power of notification of transfer from K.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 4, 6 through 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the Defendant started occupying each of the instant lands as a road by implementing an urban planning project (road) around April 1994, the Defendant should have been compensated for each of the instant lands in accordance with the former Road Act, etc. (wholly amended by Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008).