A. The land of this case was partitioned from 570 square meters to 96 square meters (317 square meters) before Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, C, 317 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the subdivision that was owned by D, and the land category was changed to a road; the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on April 18, 1975, along with E land whose land category was changed to a road; the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on July 11, 1974 on May 23, 2014 with respect to the instant land; and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on July 23, 2007, the Plaintiff thereafter on July 23, 2007.

E Land was changed by land category as an orchard on July 27, 1994.

B. The instant land located in the same location as the attached Form drawing has been used as a de facto road since before 1967, and after the said division and land category change, and is classified into G as first determined on March 6, 1995 and H as an urban planning road on December 26, 2002, respectively. The Defendant installed and installed it as a road which is an urban planning facility under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and offered it for the traffic and passage of the general public including village residents up to now. The instant land, as shown in the attached Form drawing, is laid underground obstacles such as excellent pipes, sewage pipes, water pipes, etc. installed by the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, as he/she occupies and uses the land of this case without any legal grounds, barring any special circumstances.

B. On the Defendant’s argument, the Defendant asserts that the instant land is a land for which private rights are restricted pursuant to Articles 108 and 4 of the Road Act, and thus, it does not constitute an object of request for extradition.

Article 4 of the Road Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Road") provides that "the site, retaining wall, and the road."