1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,601,70 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 5, 2016 to April 27, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 12, 1994, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on January 6, 1994 with respect to the land of this case 810 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-gun B (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The instant land was actually used as a road, but the Defendant implemented construction, including the instant land, including installation of drainage facilities, on April 1, 2009, and on September 24, 2009, on each of the following occasions:

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion from December 2006, the defendant, who occupied and used the land of this case from around December 2006 without any legal ground, gains profit equivalent to the rent and thereby causes damage to the plaintiff equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay unjust enrichment due to the occupancy and use of the land of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In the case of a de facto road that is not subject to the obligation of return of unjust enrichment, etc., when the State or a local government executes the construction work of the road, or the reconstruction or maintenance work of the existing road that is already constructed, such as the expansion of the road, the package of the road, or the installation of the sewerage, and thereby for the traffic of the general public, such road shall be deemed to be under the de facto control of the State or the local government, and possession as a de facto control entity may be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da1778, Sept. 28, 1993).

As recognized in the above, the defendant performed construction including the installation of drainage facilities on April 1, 2009 for the land of this case, which was actually used as a road, and on September 24, 2009, respectively. Thus, since April 1, 2009, the defendant actually occupied the land of this case as a de facto controlling entity.

Therefore, the defendant, from April 1, 2009, gains a profit equivalent to the profits from use without any legal ground by occupying and using the land of this case.