(a) KRW 10,426,00 and 5% per annum from May 9, 2014 to July 2, 2015; and

A. On December 29, 1981, the land in this case was divided into the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Da-213 square meters (hereinafter “instant maternity land”). On December 19, 1981, the land category was changed from “site” to “road” to “road,” and is currently used as the passage of neighboring residents, and the Defendant performed the asphalt construction and occupied the street line as the side of the street.

B. On the other hand, the pertinent land was owned by the Plaintiff on May 12, 1973, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale and purchase on February 21, 2014. Nonparty E, F, and G, the heir of the Plaintiff, made a registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance by agreement division. Nonparty E, F, and G, the heir of the network D, transferred the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment corresponding to their respective inheritance shares to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of such transfer.

[Ground for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 11-14, Eul evidence 11 through 14, Eul evidence 1, 3 (including all of the family numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the lawsuit of this case against the Defendant, who is the occupant or user of the land of this case, seeking a return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant, the Defendant asserts that the land of this case is divided from the mother land of this case and its land category is changed from around 1981, since it is the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Defendant has no standing to be the Defendant.

However, in a lawsuit for performance, the issue of whether the person who was designated as the performance obligor by the plaintiff has the qualification as the defendant and actually has the right to demand performance is only the reason to be judged as the existence of the claim within the merits, but not the matters to be determined as the party's standing. Therefore, the defendant's defense

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The occurrence of unjust enrichment obligation is one cause of claim.