beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the indication of the separate sheet No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 4.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff acquired ownership of real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) around July 25, 2016; around around July 25, 2017, the Defendant, among the instant land, performed the reconstruction construction of a road buried as sewage pipe on a part of 123 square meters in the main text of the instant land (hereinafter “instant road”); and around around 1970, the instant road is a customary road packed as a Saemaul project, and is de facto road, etc., without any dispute between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the entire purport of the pleadings and arguments as a result of the appraiser’s survey and appraisal.
2. The gist of the party’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. Since the Defendant occupied the instant road, the Defendant did not occupy the instant road, and the Plaintiff did not knowingly waive the exclusive right to use and benefit from the road, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.
3. Determination
A. (1) Determination as to the cause of the claim (1) When the State or a local government actually performs road renovation or maintenance and repair works, such as expansion of existing roads, road packaging, and construction of sewerage systems, and for the public traffic, such roads shall be deemed to be under the actual control of the State or a local government, and possession as a de facto controlling entity may be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da34155, Feb. 23, 1993). According to the above recognition, the defendant is in possession as the de facto controlling entity of the road of this case.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the road of this case to the plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
(2) As to this, the Defendant renounced the right of exclusive use by the transferor of the instant land, and the Plaintiff also knew of this.