1. As to KRW 20,362,385 among the Plaintiff and KRW 2,971,675 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,540,932 from January 23, 2012.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s decedent B, during the Japanese occupation period, was 565 square meters prior to C and D forest 1,457 square meters, respectively. The E-road 430 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) is divided into 565 square meters prior to C, and F road 552 square meters (hereinafter “instant 2 land”) from 1,457 square meters of forests and fields.

B. As to the land of this case 1, the Republic of Korea completed each registration of initial ownership on July 3, 1996 as the receipt No. 17654 on March 27, 1996, and as to the land of this case 2, each registration of initial ownership was completed on July 3, 1996 by the same registry office.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da534727 against the Republic of Korea seeking cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Republic of Korea relating to the land 1 and 2, and the said court rendered a judgment on June 25, 2015 on the ground that registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Republic of Korea was void, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Accordingly, on September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Plaintiff on the land of this case 1 and 2.

E. Of the instant land 1, 400 square meters and 833 square meters, among the instant land 2, are designated as the road site of local highway G on December 24, 1987, and is changed into local highway H on March 28, 2005, and is used as a road site until now, and is managed by the Defendant, a road management authority.

F. On December 14, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case 1 and 2 for the acquisition of public land by consultation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of this court’s verification, the result of appraiser I’s survey and appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the obligation to return unjust enrichment occurred, the defendant is entitled to possess the part of the dispute in this case before acquiring ownership of the land 1 and 2 from the plaintiff.