2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 17, 1983, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 1,180 square meters in the Do-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “land prior to subdivision”). On that ground, the Plaintiff newly constructed a three-story tenement house with 18 households from March 5, 1983 to August 1983 (hereinafter “the instant tenement house”).

B. On September 12, 1983, after completion of the instant tenement house, the land before subdivision was divided into the instant land and 1,064 square meters at the Plaintiff’s request, and the land category of C was changed to “site”.

C. Meanwhile, the instant land is currently being used as the passage of neighboring residents, and the Defendant, around 1985, occupied and managed the land by way of concrete and asphalt packaging on the said land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10, 13, and 17 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) or video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. Determination as to the cause of a claim may be divided into possession and possession as a de facto controlling body of a road management authority. Thus, if the State or a local government, even though there was no act of construction of a road under the Road Act, even if it actually performed construction work of reconstruction or maintenance and repair of a road, such as expansion of a road, packing, or installation of a sewerage system, thereby serving the general public for traffic, it shall be deemed that the road is actually under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and thus, it shall be deemed that the occupation

(2) In light of the aforementioned facts, the Defendant is in possession of the said land as a de facto controlling entity by packaging concrete and asphalt on the instant land, and barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance.