1. Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul, means the Plaintiff

A. Of the 77m2 in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 1 respectively.

1. In fact, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 4-6, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8, Gap evidence Nos. 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3.

On December 14, 1979, the Plaintiff purchased B large scale 77 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 15, 1979. The Defendant Republic of Korea is the owner of the land adjacent to the instant land, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant road”).

B. around May 7, 2008, Defendant Republic of Korea changed the category of the instant road from the original site to the road, and Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul, by around that time, occupied and managed the instant road by designating and publicly announcing the instant road route as to the instant road, and packaging the road expansion and asphalt concrete (hereinafter referred to as “stamp concrete”) on several occasions.

C. However, Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul, who managed the road of this case, occupied and managed part of 11 square meters inboard (hereinafter “the instant land”) that was connected with each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 1 in sequence among the instant land in the management of the road of this case by including it into the instant road and packaging it into a asphalt.

From the time the Plaintiff purchased the instant land, there was a single-story building on that ground, and the instant key land was used as a site for that building.

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (referred to as “Defendant” in this item)

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the land at issue in this case is owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant occupies the land as a road by carrying out a package work on the land, barring any special circumstance, the defendant removes the asphalt packed on the land at issue in this case, and barring any special circumstance.