Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order to perform shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 13, 1981, the Plaintiff’s land value of 586 square meters in Hanam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “C land after division”) was divided into the instant road and the instant road. After the division, C land was divided into a building site on November 13, 1990 and then divided into a building site on November 1, 1999 and then C was 346 square meters at the present time (hereinafter “H Ri in Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-do”). B. The instant road was incorporated into a “road improvement project in Ha-dong, Chungcheongnam-do” around August 19, 1981, and its land category was changed into a “road” and the Defendant offered land to the general public, including the instant road, during the period from November 13, 1990 to the completion of possession.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff without any title occupies and uses the instant road owned by the Plaintiff without any title, the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver it to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 34,950,000 per month from October 1, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the instant road, and the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 48,00 per month from October 1, 2019 to the date of completion of delivery of the instant road.

B. Since the period of prescription for the Defendant’s possession of the instant road has expired by continuously occupying the instant road in a peaceful and public performance manner for at least 20 years after the Plaintiff paid compensation to the Plaintiff by incorporating the instant road into “a Eup/Myeon Do Do Eup/Myeon Do ”, the Defendant has the right to possess the instant road.

Since 1981, the instant road has been provided for the passage of the general public as the road, and the Plaintiff has not filed any objection against the Defendant or filed a claim for restitution of unjust profits, and the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use the instant road.

Therefore, the defendant does not have a duty to return unjust profits to the plaintiff.

3. Determination A.