1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On December 26, 193, the Plaintiff’s reference to the recognition was registered as the owner on the land cadastre of 1,220 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).

On August 4, 1934, in the land before the instant partition, the land category was changed due to the division of 2 square meters (the number was changed to 7 square meters of FF road in Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; hereinafter “F land”). On November 18, 1935, the land category was changed due to the division of 151 square meters (the number was changed to 49 square meters of B road in Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun; hereinafter “instant land”). On the same day, the land category was changed, and 1,046 square meters was divided.

After each of the above divisions, the number and land category of the D land was changed to the area of 69 square meters on June 19, 1978, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do I road (hereinafter “I land”).

On May 15, 1978, the land category of 130 square meters (hereinafter “J land”) was divided into the said H land, and the land category was changed to 130 square meters on the roads J of Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, and on January 18, 1991, 3,320 square meters (hereinafter “K land”).

After each of the above divisions, the number of the H land was changed to 8 square meters in Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do Lane (hereinafter referred to as “L land”).

On May 1, 1978, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case due to family inheritance on February 2, 1951.

At the same time, the land category was changed to a road at the same time, and around that time, the land has been provided for the passage of the general public under the defendant's possession.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above recognition of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendant acquired profit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the instant land as a road, and thereby, sustained damages equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff as the owner, barring special circumstances.