1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The annexed drawings marks 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 21, 11, out of the area of 1134 square meters prior to the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B.

1. On December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the area of 1134 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

During the period from 1973 to 1998, the Defendant installs and manages a concrete ditch on the part of 126 square meters in the ship connecting each point of 6,7,18, 19, 20, 21, 11, 12, 13, 17, 16, 15, and 6 of the instant land in sequence.

The amount equivalent to the rent from December 8, 2015 to December 31, 2015 for the ditch of this case is KRW 41,760, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent from January 1, 2016 is KRW 53,810.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-3 and images; the result of this court’s commission of survey and appraisal to the chief office before the Korea Land Information Corporation; the result of appraisal of the appraiser C’s fee appraisal; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant who occupies the ditch of this case, barring special circumstances, is obligated to remove the ditch of this case and deliver the part of the land to the plaintiff who is the land owner.

In addition, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the benefits accrued from the possession and use of the ditch of this case. As such, the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 41,760 to KRW 53,810 per month from January 1, 2016 to the date of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership in the ditch of this case or the end of the Defendant’s possession.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that according to administrative practices, the land owner at the time of the construction of the ditch of this case consented to the construction of the ditch of this case, and the land owner did not raise any objection after the construction of the ditch of this case, and the plaintiff also acquired land ownership with the knowledge that neighboring residents had used the ditch of this case as a free passage. Thus, the plaintiff cannot exercise exclusive use right as to the part of the ditch of this case.

In addition, the defendant occupied and managed the ditches of this case.