Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

Basic Facts

The reasoning of this Court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph (1) of the same Article.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court regarding the cause of the claim is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The court's reasoning concerning this part of the claim for acquisition through consultation is the third-party reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The defendant asserts that "the defendant occupied the land of this case from February 18, 1983 to February 17, 2003 with the intention of possession for twenty (20) years from February 18, 2003, as the compensation protocol for the road of this case stating that the compensation amount for each of the land of this case was deposited to the plaintiff, and thus, he occupied each of the land of this case in peace and public performance for twenty (20) years from February 18, 2003, the prescriptive prescription was completed. Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay to the plaintiff the unjust enrichment due to the possession of each of the land of this case (road use). Accordingly, according to the above facts, the defendant occupied the land of this case as a site related to the road of this case from the time of incorporation into the road of this case to the present date, and the possessor is presumed to have occupied the land of this case with the intention of possession in good faith, peace, and public performance (Article 197 (1) of the Civil Act).