(a) 70,223,33 won and the rate of 20% per annum from April 15, 2014 to the date of full payment.

A. 1) On March 19, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 195 square meters of a road B 195 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). 2) The said land was divided into a road on February 24, 1995, and its land category was changed to a road. The remaining land category of C land was changed to a site.

3) The instant land was part of farmland adjacent to the existingly formed road. From around 1974, it was integrated into the existing road and provided for the passage of the general public in the form of road similar to the present road. On July 28, 1989, the instant land was included in the road with a width of 10 meters from the Suwon Urban Planning to the river (Extension) designated as a small road. On April 23, 2009, the management number was changed to 1-141 as a small road. 4) At the present, it is part of the road with the name assigned as D, and is offered for the passage of the general public without having been put in the asphalt package by the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6 through 8, Eul 1 through 5, purport of whole pleadings]

B. Determination 1) According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for possession and use to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, since the Defendant occupied and used the instant land as a road which provides the Plaintiff’s land for the passage of the general public. 2) The Defendant asserts that since the former owner of the instant land renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land that conflict with the road of urban planning facilities to construct a building on the instant land that falls under C after partition around April 1989, the Plaintiff, who succeeded to and acquired the instant land, may not seek restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant

However, as the land portion of this case is announced as urban planning facilities (road) and its use and profit-making is restricted in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, land owners in fact allowed the use of the land of this case as roads for public use.