2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with paragraph (1).

A. On May 6, 1965, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B 582 square meters in Jinju-si, Jin-si (hereinafter “pre-divisioned land”).

B. From 1975 to 1977, the Defendant incorporated the surrounding land into the existing Saemaul Project, thereby expanding its width to about 5 meters and packaging the road.

Accordingly, on October 30, 1975, the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table is divided from the land before subdivision. Around August 17, 1977, the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table was divided from the 354 square meters remaining after subdivision as above, and the land category of each divided land was changed into a road and was incorporated into the said expansion road.

C. The instant land is commonly used for the general public’s traffic after being incorporated into the said extended road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. Determination as to the cause of a claim can be seen as dividing the form of possession of a road by the State or a local government into possession and possession as a de facto controller. However, in a case where a public announcement of recognition of routes or a road zone is determined under the Road Act, or where a road is established as a result of the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, possession as a road management authority can be recognized starting from the point of time. Even if there was no act of construction of a road under the Road Act, if the State or a local government performed the reconstruction or maintenance of a road, such as expansion of a road, packing, or installation of a sewerage system, and for the public traffic, it can be deemed that the road was actually under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and possession as a de facto controller is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 9, Sept. 9, 19