The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 1972, the land in Gwangju City was unregistered and divided into 902 square meters of the instant land and D forest in Gwangju City, and the land category of the instant land was changed to a road.

Since then, registration of ownership preservation (No. 26270) was completed on June 14, 1996 by the Suwon District Court in the name of the Republic of Korea for the land of this case.

B. On January 8, 2008, E filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea to cancel the registration of initial ownership of the instant land (Seoul Central District Court 2007da103312) and completed registration of initial ownership on March 24, 2008 as the receipt No. 15756, by filing a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea to cancel the registration of initial ownership of the instant land (Seoul Central District Court 2007da10312).

C. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of co-ownership transfer on March 18, 2013 as to co-ownership 6/23 of the instant land under the Sungwon District Court’s Sung-nam Branch Office of Gwangju Branch on the ground of public sale.

The instant land is currently packed in asphalt and used as a road for the general public’s traffic.

E. The rent of the instant land is as follows on the basis of the road:

The monthly rent for the period from March 11, 2013 to March 10, 2014, KRW 82,380, to March 11, 2014; KRW 84,820 to March 10, 2015; KRW 84,820 to March 11, 2015; KRW 89,120 to March 10, 2016; and the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition; KRW 1, 2, and 5; KRW 7; each entry of KRW 7; the result of the appraisal by the appraiser F of the first instance trial; and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the party's assertion 1) The plaintiff is the co-ownership owner of the land of this case, and the defendant occupies the land of this case without permission, so the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the land of this case to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant does not occupy the land of this case.

The land of this case was used as a road since before 1970, and is the only passage to the village.

Plaintiff

The former owner of the instant land is exclusively and exclusively responsible for the instant land.