2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. C: (a) on June 30, 1965, June 30, 1965, the period of change of ownership of 465 square meters prior to Incheon po-gun, Incheon po-gun, is abbreviationd into “the pertinent parcel number” (hereinafter each land is referred to as “the pertinent parcel number”).

(2) The aforementioned D land was partitioned on May 11, 2015, and transferred to a third party the size of 1443 square meters prior to D and 465 square meters prior to D, on October 16, 194.

3) On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s pro rata C, who was the Plaintiff’s relative, was 465 square meters prior to B (hereinafter “instant land”).

(B) As to the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed based on donation. (B) Of the Defendant’s instant land, the ownership transfer registration was completed. (i) Of the instant land, the Defendant’s possession management 1), the part of the attached drawings Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 connected with each point of the instant land, which is located in sequence 125 square meters above that of the instant land (hereinafter “instant road”) was installed since 1981, and was actually used as a road, and functioned as a part of the road leading to F, a village, the after the lapse of the Incheon Cheong-gun E Village in Incheon, Incheon.

2) The instant road was only a concrete package around November 2012, but the Defendant implemented the Village Re-Packing Project around 2013, upon the recommendation of the residents of the Incheon Cheongjin-gun E, Incheon, who wished to pack the instant road. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Party B’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including the branch number, images, and the purport of the entire pleadings).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant land and is in possession and management of the instant road, claims the removal of the instant road and the delivery of the land, and also claims the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was to waive the exclusive and exclusive right to use the instant land provided as the instant road.

3. Determination

A. Either of the legal principles is the beginning with the previous land.