(a) KRW 56,138,400 and 5% per annum from July 26, 2017 to July 6, 2018; and

A. On August 22, 1958, B purchased the land indicated in the attachment (hereinafter “instant land”) indicating the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant land”), and on January 9, 1956, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from B on December 20, 205.

B. The instant land has been offered for public passage from January 9, 1956 to the present date and has been used as a road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of obligation to return unjust gains;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant occupied the land of this case as a road, thereby gaining profits without any legal ground and causing damages to the plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return the profits accrued therefrom to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged that he acquired the instant land by prescription, it is presumed that the Defendant occupied the instant land from January 9, 1956 to twenty (20) years, as seen earlier, and that the Defendant occupied it in peace and openly with the intent to own it.

However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant, while incorporating the instant land into a road site, did not take the procedure for acquiring public property or obtained the consent of its owner to use the instant land. At the time of incorporation into a road, the Plaintiff’s former owner entered the instant land as its owner in the old land cadastre or register book.

In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant is bound to have occupied the instant land without permission without permission, without undergoing due process for acquisition of the public property as a property for public use. Therefore, the Defendant’s possession of the instant land is presumed to have broken down the presumption that it is an autonomous possession.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the acquisition by prescription is without merit.

3. As to the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned to the Defendant, it is a special circumstance.