토지인도
1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
(b).
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added or emphasized the argument that the defendant added to or emphasized by the court of first instance, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion that the land in dispute is not occupied. (1) The Defendant’s assertion that the land in dispute is not occupied by the road management authority. (2) The Defendant’s assertion that the land in dispute occupies the land in question (hereinafter “the instant structure, etc.”) < Amended by Act No. 1060, Dec. 23, 2007> the construction of the stairs-type packaging on the land in dispute for the convenience of residents, the structure of the steel-type railing is limited to the lower part of the stairs-type, and the lower part of the steel pipe installed the sewage pipe, and the land in dispute does not constitute a road.
The ownership belongs to the residents after the establishment, and the defendant is managed by the residents. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to possess the land in dispute because it is not the owner of the structure, etc. of this case. Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to remove the structure, etc. of this case, deliver the land in dispute, and return the unjust enrichment from the possession of the land in dispute. 2) The fact that the defendant occupies the land in dispute by installing the structure, etc. of this case on the land in dispute is not in dispute between the parties, but there is no dispute between the parties, and even though the defendant led to the confession that he occupies the land in dispute on the fifth day for pleading of the first instance trial, the defendant revoked it through each preparatory document on September 1, 2017 and March 14, 2018, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the confession was due to the violation of the truth, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, the Road Act or the Urban Planning Act, etc. has been enacted on the private land in which the state or local governments have been actually used for the traffic of the general public.