1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the fact-finding are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of Gap evidence 6 as evidence of this part of the fact-finding. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. The form of possession of a road by the nature state or a local government can be divided into possession and possession as a de facto controlling body of the road management authority. Thus, if the existing road is determined by the Road Act, or the road zone is constructed by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, the occupation of the road management authority starting from the existing road can be recognized. Even if the road is not established by the Road Act, if the State or a local government actually performs the reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of the existing road, such as expansion of the existing road, road packing, or installation of sewerage system, and uses it for the general public’s traffic, it shall be deemed that the existing road is under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and it shall be recognized that the local government actually commences possession as a controlling body.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the profit from the use of the pertinent land from October 27, 2012 to November 30, 2017, which the Plaintiff seeks from October 30, 2017, inasmuch as the instant land is part of a road constructed on a road, and the Defendant, as a road management authority, obtained profit equivalent to the profit from the use of the said land and thereby incurred the same loss to the Plaintiff presumed to be the landowner. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the profit from the use of the said land from October 27, 2012 to November 30, 2017.