1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 9, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of 833 square meters prior to Chuncheon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Around 2004, the Defendant carried out the “village Packing Construction Work” on the ground of the following: (a) a part of 72 square meters in the ship connecting each point in sequence of the indication of the attached drawing among the instant land in the order of 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, and 11, and installed a water pipe on the ground of the instant land in around 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, each entry or video of Eul evidence 1, the result of the commission of surveying and appraisal to appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) Where the State or a local government implements road renovation or maintenance and repair work, such as expansion, package of a road, or installation of a water pipeline, and uses it for the general public, even though the act of establishing a road has not occurred, such road shall be deemed to have been under the actual control of the State or a local government, and it may be deemed that the occupation has been

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da70900, Mar. 12, 2002).

In light of the above facts, the defendant, around 2004, performed concrete packaging on the part of the dispute of this case owned by the plaintiff and thereafter occupied by offering it to the general public for passage from around that time. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the above concrete packaging materials and water pipes to the plaintiff, deliver the part of the dispute of this case, which is the site, and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the use of the part of the dispute of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's waiver of exclusive right to use

A. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff was actually being used as a road prior to the execution of the village development road packing work of this case.