The defendant around 1931 set up a road in the vicinity of the above land and its neighboring area, and packaged the road.

Accordingly, on July 22, 1931, F 474 square meters and G 57 square meters (after that, the above land was converted into the area and became G 188 square meters; hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) were divided and land category changed.

After that, the instant land is used for the passage of the general public.

On May 8, 2008, the Plaintiff completed registration of ownership preservation on the instant land in accordance with Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (No. 7500).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 7 (including paper numbers), and the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding with the head of Si/Gun, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the facts of recognition as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendant opened a road and packing construction on the instant land, and used it for the general public to occupy and manage the instant land as a road until now.

Therefore, the defendant should return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the possession and use of the land in this case to the plaintiff as the owner.

B. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the prescription period for the acquisition of possession of the instant land was completed on July 22, 1951, since around July 22, 1931, since the Defendant occupied the instant land in peace and openly with intent to own it for at least 20 years.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's possession is an unauthorized occupancy in bad faith.

In this regard, real estate owned by another person is well aware of the fact that the possessor does not have any legal or other legal requirements which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession.