(a) deliver the E-road 107 square meters in Seocho-si;

B. 2,170,430 Won and from January 1, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the land of this case is occupied and used without any title, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the possession and use to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserted that he did not occupy the instant land, and the Plaintiff waived his exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Defendant’s occupation or a local government occupies a road can be divided into possession and possession as a de facto controller of the road management authority. As such, if a road zone is determined under the Road Act, or a road is constructed by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, possession as a road management authority may be recognized starting from the date of such determination. However, even if a road is not established under the Road Act, if the State or a local government actually performed the construction or maintenance of a road, such as expansion of a road, packing of a road, or installation of a sewerage system, and thus, for public traffic, the State or a local government can be deemed to have been under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and thus, the occupation

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da21206 delivered on September 24, 1991, etc.). However, prior to 2006, the Defendant laid the water supply pipes, etc. on the ground of the instant land in order to supply tap water and discharge water from nearby houses in relation to the instant land. Around 2006, the Defendant implemented the rearrangement project as sewage pipes to create a clean living environment.