1. The Defendant, among the land size of 133 square meters in Seoul Jung-gu B, shall in sequence indicate 9, 2, 10, and 9 attached drawings among the land size of 133 square meters in Seoul Jung-gu.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large- 133 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of a road C 815 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant road”).

C. Of the instant land, “1” portion 5 square meters in the ship connected with each point of 9, 2, 10, and 9, among the instant land, is being used as a road along with the instant road because the Defendant’s facility package was packed on the road site (hereinafter “instant site”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 and images, appraiser D's survey and appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the claim can be divided into possession of a road by the State or a local government and possession of a road as a de facto controller. In fact, if the existing road is determined by the Road Act, or a road zone is constructed by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, possession as a road management authority may be recognized starting from the existing road. However, even if the construction of a road is not conducted by the State or a local government under the Road Act, it shall be deemed that the existing road is under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and it shall be deemed that the existing road is under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and it shall be deemed that the existing road is under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and it shall be deemed that the road is, even if it

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da19804 delivered on August 24, 1993, etc.). According to the above facts, the Defendant occupies the instant road site as a de facto controlling entity. Thus, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff, a landowner of this case, is installed on the instant road site.