A. On June 28, 1979, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to CY 3,722 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

B. On August 10, 1987, D 1,491 square meters was divided from the above C’s land. On August 26, 1987, the land category of D 1,491 square meters was changed from “the answer” to “the road”, and on August 21, 1999, B 1,467 square meters was divided from the above D’s land (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On June 3, 1986, Gyeonggi-do promoted the expansion and packing of local highway F among E, paid KRW 6,163,290 to the Plaintiff as a prior compensation under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss, with respect to the portion of 1,491 square meters to be divided into the above D land among the above C land.

On August 6, 1988, the Plaintiff returned to the Defendant an excessive compensation of KRW 124,740.

The land of this case is used as a road since it was included in the Gyeonggi-do Do Do Do F, and thereafter, it is managed by Gyeonggi-do as well as the defendant after the closure of routes on March 28, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9, 11, 13 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the counterclaim claim, Gyeonggi-do occupied the land of this case in peace and public performance from June 3, 1986 with its intention to own it, and the defendant succeeded to the above possession from Gyeonggi-do on March 28, 2005, the defendant completed the prescriptive prescription as to the land of this case on June 3, 200 after the lapse of 20 years from June 3, 1986, the possession date.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on June 3, 2006 with respect to the instant land to the Defendant.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant occupied and used the instant land without any legal cause, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent of the instant land as unjust enrichment.

However, Article 247(1) of the Civil Code is acquired by prescription.