1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 65,60,444 as well as 5% per annum from June 30, 2017 to September 27, 2017; and

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On May 23, 1981, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the land listed in the attached list of the facts of recognition (hereinafter “instant land”).

On July 3, 2002, the instant land was divided into C in order to establish the urban planning road on July 3, 2002.

The land of this case is adjacent to the urban planning road (D) established by the defendant, and the asphalt package is incorporated into the above urban planning road without distinguishing the boundary, and the person and the vehicle above the land of this case pass along.

The form of the land in this case is identical to the attached appraisal map, and the area is 90 square meters.

The rent for the instant land from December 30, 201 to May 31, 2017 is KRW 64,646,00, and the monthly rent after 2017 is KRW 1,014,44.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, evidence 4, each photographic image of one to five evidence 5, the result of this court's commission of surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the result of commission of appraisal of rent to appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As to whether the Defendant occupied and used the instant land as a road, it is reasonable to view that the instant land is provided to the general public for traffic as a combination with an adjacent urban planning road, in light of the following circumstances ratified from the above recognition.

① As the Defendant is also the land at issue, the instant land is currently determined as F, and due to such administrative regulation, the Plaintiff does not occupy and use the instant land for permanent purposes, such as construction.

On the other hand, the land in this case is one of the adjacent urban planning roads and the roads which are not divided by appearance.

According to these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the instant land is under the Defendant’s de facto control from the time of the construction of the adjacent urban planning road, even if there was no act of building a road by the

(2)