The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The following facts may be recognized, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 29 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of oral arguments:

C has completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 13, 193, 193 332.

After that, on November 30, 1941, 55 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was divided from the above land.

B. C died on October 13, 1949, and the Plaintiff inherited the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 7, 2016.

C. As the instant land was incorporated into a road site on November 30, 1941, the land category was changed from the entire area to a road, and was used as a national highway from that time under the possession and management of the State.

After that, on November 5, 2002, the state announced the closure of the use of the road as of November 12, 2002 by the main text of Article 28 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008) with respect to the general national highway F 3.31km in the racing-si, which includes the land of this case.

At that time, the defendant, as a local government, has succeeded to the possession of the State and has occupied and managed the above road including the land in this case as a road for general traffic.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Defendant opened, occupied, and used the road on the instant land from around 1995 without permission.

Therefore, from January 1, 2007 to March 31, 2018, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment of KRW 31,140,190 and delay damages incurred from the possession and use of the instant land.

B. Since November 30, 1941, the land of this case was completely acquired by the Defendant by possession in peace and public performance with the intent of the State or the Defendant from November 30, 194 to the present time. Thus, the Defendant is in the position to be entitled to acquire the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the prescription period

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the royalty on the land of this case.