1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,927,225 as well as 5% per annum from July 2, 2016 to November 25, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 14, and Eul evidence 14.

(1) On June 1, 1987, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of May 29, 1987 with respect to B 215 square meters before Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B on November 17, 1995, the said land was divided into 161 square meters prior to Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) and 54 square meters prior to C.

B. Around June 11, 1977, E, the owner of the land of this case, which is the mother land of this case, filed an application with the Defendant for subdivision of the said land with the urban planning line of KRW 117 square meters prior to D, B, 215 square meters prior to F, and G 191 square meters prior to G, in accordance with the urban planning system. On June 14, 1977, the Defendant, around June 17, 197, replaced the above application with the content on whether the said application meets the urban planning line.

The land of this case is currently being used as the passage of vehicles and pedestrians, including H Village bus, on which the asphalt is packed.

Article 28(1) of the Civil Act provides that the Defendant shall set up a parking zone line from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2016 and set up a resident priority parking zone as the user fee from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2014; and the amount equivalent to 35,000 won per month and the amount equivalent to 80% per month from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The land in this case was inevitably incorporated into the public road according to the urban planning, and the Defendant occupied, used, and managed the land since May 1, 198, the enforcement date of the Local Autonomy Act.

The Defendant gains unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the instant land in a manner that provides it to the general public for use by packaging it on the instant land.