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

A. On February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government 803 square meters (hereinafter “B”) and C large 281 square meters (hereinafter “C land”).

B. The Defendant occupies the portion of “B” as a cement passage along the ship, which connects each point of the attached Table 9, 10, 11, 12, 33, 34, 35, 36, 34, 34, 34, 33, 12, 13, 14, 32, 31, 30, 30, 29, and 8 among the land B and C, with the land attached Table 47, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 51, 50, 49, 48, and 47, 37, 37, 37, 400 square meters in sequence, among the land in the attached Table 9, 37, 38, 40, 42, 52, 48, and 47.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant occupies and manages the land in the dispute of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, as a road without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the land in the dispute of this case to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the former owner of the land in the dispute of this case gave up the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the said land, and provided the said land as a road for the general public to pass without compensation. The Plaintiff who purchased the land in the dispute of this case, which is subject to the restriction on use and benefit, cannot seek the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant.

(b)if any land is naturally occurring or is classified as a proposed road site and actually being used as a road for public traffic of the general public, the owner of the land has provided that the land as a road on his/her own, thereby granting the neighboring residents or the general public the right to free traffic, or such land;