1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 7,557,936 as well as 5% per annum from June 22, 2019 to June 19, 2020; and

1. Basic facts

A. On November 17, 1936, the Plaintiff’s father C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on April 30, 1936, with respect to the land of 433 square meters on the Busan Gangseo-gu road B (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On July 23, 1946, the land category of this case was changed to a road.

C. On April 4, 2019, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 12, 1975, based on inheritance by consultation and division. D.

The land in this case is located near the northwest of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City and is used as an irregular land located in the vicinity of the northwest of the Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City and located in the vicinity of the adjoining road (4 lanes) and in the vicinity of the adjoining lot, and is used as a road, and the defendant is the subject of the land management.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 1 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), appraiser F's fee appraisal result, the fact inquiry results against the head of G appraiser office of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to each of the above facts finding that the obligation to return unjust enrichment occurred, the land in this case is part of the road constructed on the road, and the defendant occupied and used it as a road management authority, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the profit from the use, and thereby causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff, who is the landowner. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s defense (1) asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless since C or the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land. However, it is insufficient to recognize that C or the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land solely on the ground that C or the Plaintiff did not raise a long-term objection or demand for compensation regarding the use of the instant land as a road.