1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Gwangju City, B, 951 square meters in India

(b) As from April 1, 2015, KRW 20,256,00 and the above.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 12, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired 1/4 ownership shares of B, 951 square meters in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

Meanwhile, the instant land was used as a road for the passage of the public from around 1991.

B. On June 27, 2001, the Defendant received the registration of transfer of ownership based on a consultation on the public land purchase on June 12, 2001 from C who was the 1/2 equity right holder of the instant land, and acquired the 1/2 equity shares of the instant land.

C. Where there is no security deposit for the instant land, the monthly rent calculated according to the ratio of the Plaintiff’s share is as follows:

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, appraiser D's appraisal result, purport of whole pleading

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount calculated by applying the ratio of 20,256,000 won to the unjust enrichment from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2015, as the Plaintiff seeks, and 377,500 won per month from April 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request because he gave up his exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case without compensation for the building permit of surrounding land.

According to the purport of the argument in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through Eul evidence No. 13, the land of this case was part of 1,361 square meters in the city of Gwangju. From July 20, 191 to July 20, 191, the land of this case was part of 1,361 square meters in the land of this case, and was divided into F, G, H, and I, and the land of this case was divided into both sides, and the building started to leave each of the above land. The plaintiff was 1/2 of the land before the division, and the plaintiff prepared the written consent to use of the land of this case for the building permit of the above J and F, and the neighboring buildings were entered.