(a) 7,913,300 won and 12% per annum from July 1, 2020 to the date of complete payment.

A. On December 31, 1990 and December 29, 1990, E completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of the partition of co-owned property on December 31, 1990 as to the land of this case, Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on the ground of donation on August 18, 2003, and July 25, 2003.

B. Of the instant land, the portion of “B” part of the instant land, which was 115 square meters (hereinafter “instant land (B)”) connected with each point of the instant land in sequence with the indication of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, has been provided for the traffic of the public prior to around 1987. The Defendant’s road package on the said part of the instant land and used the said part for the traffic of the general public.

C. The part of the instant land (B) was included in G as determined as urban planning facilities within the F District Unit Planning Zone on November 28, 2007.

On November 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition against the Defendant regarding the unauthorized Use of the part of the instant land (B). On November 12, 2018, the Defendant sent a reply stating that “The instant land is determined as an urban planning road (G) within the F District Unit Planning Zone, making it possible to compensate for civil petitions and build roads at the time of the implementation of the road construction project. The pertinent road is planned at two stages (2020) according to the implementation plan by phase (20), and it is understood that the relevant road construction project is difficult to implement the site due to the financial conditions of the Gun.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, video, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant actually occupied the above part of the land by putting the road package on the part of the instant land and using it for the traffic of the general public. 2) The Defendant used the part of the instant land as the passage of neighboring residents from around 1987 to around 1987.