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

On January 8, 1963, the acquisition date of land ownership, such as the acquisition of the ownership of each land listed in the Defendant’s separate sheet, on January 28, 1963, on June 28, 1962, each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) on October 8, 1963, on October 28, 1963, the Defendant (limited to each land listed in the separate sheet) acquired ownership of each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “land of this case”) on October 8, 1963, on October 28, 1958, on October 28, 1958, changed the name of the Defendant on January 8, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), and the location and nature of each land indicated in the separate sheet as follows, as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case” in the separate sheet, and as indicated in the separate sheet.

around 1968, the Seoul Metropolitan Government, on each of the instant lands in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, has made a contribution by packaging asphalt at the Dongdaemun-dong 27-2, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, the land adjacent to the land Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and each of the instant lands has been used as a site for the road connected to the entrance and session of the Gyeonghee University until now.

On January 28, 1994, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City against the defendant claiming a return of unjust enrichment against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The defendant filed a lawsuit against Seoul Special Metropolitan City on January 28, 1994 against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the ground that he occupied and used the land owned by the defendant, including each of the land in this case without permission, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on January 28, 1989 on the ground that it occupied and used the land owned by the defendant, including each of the land in this case.

On July 14, 1995, the same court rendered a judgment dismissing the defendant's claim by judging that the acquisition by prescription for the possession of the land in dispute was due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

The judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive and the defendant appealed in Seoul High Court No. 95Na35847, but the same court was the same on June 4, 1996.