1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 239 square meters of B forest land in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the attached drawings are indicated 6, 3, 4, 7, 6.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) sold 1/2 shares of B forest No. 239 square meters in the auction procedure; and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land in the name of the Plaintiff on May 17, 2012.

B. From around 2000, the Defendant installed concrete road fences, etc. on the ground area of 30 square meters on the part of 30 square meters on the ground, which connects each point of 6, 6, 3, 4, 7, 6, and 30 square meters in sequence among the above land B (hereinafter “instant land”), and uses the instant land as a road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of land transfer and unjust enrichment;

A. The Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, is obligated to remove road barriers and fixtures that obstruct the exercise of the Plaintiff’s ownership and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent gained by occupying and using the instant land.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and determination 1) The Defendant is prohibited from exercising his/her private right on a site, retaining wall, and other facilities constituting a road pursuant to Article 4 of the Road Act. The instant land is a road legally determined and publicly notified as an urban planning facility pursuant to the Urban Planning Act on June 11, 200, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer of the instant land is unjustifiable. Since a road subject to Article 4 of the Road Act refers to a road that has been determined and publicly notified as a route under the Road Act or a road zone, or a road that has gone through a procedure corresponding thereto under the Urban Planning Act, Article 4 of the Road Act does not apply to a road that has not gone through such a procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da3927, 39234, Dec. 28, 199). As such, whether the instant land is a road that has completed the prescribed procedure, such as route approval under the Road Act

Gap evidence Nos. 1, 12 through 14, Eul Nos. 1, 2, 7.