(a) KRW 4,349,655 and interest thereon shall be 12% per annum from September 20, 2019 to the date of complete payment.

A. The Plaintiff is solely holding each land indicated in the separate sheet from June 11, 1999 to the annexed sheet 1.

In the mid-190s, the Defendant: (a) incorporated the part 2.(b) and 69 square meters in the attached Table 2; and (b) the part 256 square meters and part 268 square meters in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “second land”) in the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1 of the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the attached Table 1”) into a road; and (b) provided a asphalt package and a part 268 square meters in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] The statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number for those with additional numbers), the result of this court's request for surveying and appraisal of the Jeju branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the use of possession of the above part of the land No. 1 and the above part of the land No. 2, the sum of the E part, 593 square meters.

C. The defendant's defense 1) The defendant's defense of waiver of the right to use the above part of the land No. 1 and the above part D and E of the land No. 2, the sum of which is 593 square meters, among the above part of the land No. 1 and the land No. 2, provided it to the owner as a site for the road and provided a right to access free of charge to neighboring residents or the general public, or waiver of exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land, which is not possible to respond to the plaintiff's claim. There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff or the former owner of the above part of the land directly provided it as a site for the road. Therefore, the defendant's defense of the completion of acquisition by prescription is without merit.