The Defendant, as the Plaintiff

(a) 43,061,000 won and the rate of 12% per annum from September 4, 2020 to the date of complete payment.

The plaintiff is a non-corporate body as a village association of the Seopopopo City Ari, Seopopo City.

Around February 1, 1985, the Defendant divided the land category into the E-mail 354 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, E-si, 354 square meters (hereinafter “Before subdivision”) and changed the land category into a road.

At that time, the Defendant opened a road on the instant land, and the said land has been used as a road until now.

On October 7, 1984, the Plaintiff received a donation of land before subdivision and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 6, 1993 with respect to the land in this case (divided land) and the land of Seogpo-si 220 square meters (divided land).

The instant land is currently used as a road to enter and depart from H, and is currently in the south side of the police box located in the F of the Western City.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant unilaterally incorporate the land of this case into the road site, and unilaterally opens the road and uses and benefits from it until now.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to rent and delay damages for the past five years from the date of filing the instant lawsuit to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to rent each year from the date on which the Plaintiff loses ownership of the instant land or the Defendant closes the said road to the date on which possession is completed by closing it.

The plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was given free of charge for the passage of the general public to the road site, and renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit therefrom.

Judgment

According to the facts found in the judgment on the occurrence of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, the Defendant opened a road on the instant land, thereby failing to use the said land.

Ultimately, the Defendant occupies and uses the instant land.