1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The 50/124 shares of the instant land (hereinafter “instant shares”) were owned by C respectively by the 00/124 shares in the 74/124 shares and 74/124 shares in the 00. However, on October 27, 1997, the registration of provisional attachment registration pursuant to the Incheon District Court of Housing Business Mutual Aid Association No. 97Kahap5604 and the registration of provisional attachment registration pursuant to the same court No. 97Kahap5603, respectively.

The share of this case was transferred to the defendant on March 3, 1998 on the ground of the donation made by December 15, 1997, and C transferred the share to the defendant on the same day on the ground of public land consultation on April 23, 1998.

According to the application of the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (Mutual Aid Association for Housing Projects before its change), each of the above provisional seizures was implemented as a principal seizure and the compulsory auction procedure for the instant shares was commenced (this court D). In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff paid the proceeds of sale and acquired ownership of the instant shares on July 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings are asserted by the plaintiff, who occupies and uses the land of this case without permission on the road. Thus, the land of this case must be transferred to the plaintiff who is a right holder

Since the Defendant’s occupation and use of the instant share in the instant land without permission as a tort or there is no legal ground to do so, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent of the instant share as compensation for damages or return of unjust enrichment.

If a co-owner having a majority of the shares in seeking land transfer decides to exclusively use and benefit from specific parts of the jointly-owned property, it is lawful as the method of management of the jointly-owned property (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da33638, Nov. 27, 2001); and no private right may be exercised against a site constituting a road, a retaining wall, and other facilities.

(Article 4 of the Road Act). The Defendant’s instant case.