(a) KRW 2,929,626 as well as 5% per annum from April 25, 2016 to September 8, 2016, and the following:

A. On January 19, 1977, the registration of ownership transfer was completed with the Plaintiff and C on January 19, 197 with respect to the 594 level prior to the Gyeonggi-gun.

Since then, the land No. 1 was partitioned in the above land, and the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the partition of co-owned property as to the land No. 1 on October 2, 1992.

B. On January 19, 1977, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff, C, E, and F on January 19, 197 with respect to Gyeonggi-do D 254.

Since then, the above land became the second land through the division and change of administrative district, and the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the second land on October 2, 1992 due to the partition of co-owned property.

C. The (i) (ii) and (ii) the (c) parts of the (i) land 1 and the (ii) parts of the (i) 2, were used as a road in fact from the past. The Defendant is occupying and managing the said parts by providing them to the general public for the construction of packaging on the instant road before acquiring the Plaintiff’s ownership.

2. Determination

A. In the event of unjust enrichment, the Defendant: (a) occupied and used the instant road portion as a de facto controller; and (b) obtained without any legal cause the benefit equivalent to the rent; and (c) thereby inflicted damage on the Plaintiff.

Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent from March 25, 2010 to April 24, 2016 and the rent from April 25, 2016 to the date of road closure or the date of the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership as unjust enrichment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the waiver of the right to use the road, the Plaintiff purchased the land No. 1 and No. 2 while knowing the fact that the instant road is being used as a road.

In addition, a building constructed on another parcel of land adjacent to the land Nos. 1 and 2 has been granted a building permit by considering the current status of the road part in this case, and the plaintiff also issued a written consent for land use with respect to the land No. 1 and 2 at the time of application for the building

3.2