beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. The Plaintiff 1,184,910 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from March 30, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 12, 1980, the land listed in [Attachment 1] No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) was changed from “former” to “Road” on November 12, 1980. Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer from the former owner C on the ground of sale as of November 16, 2007.
B. On November 9, 1942, the land listed in [Attachment 2] No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land,” and “each of the instant land” together with the instant one land was changed from “B,” to “road.” On October 24, 2010, Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer from “D,” the former owner, on the ground that the instant land was donated on October 5, 2010.
C. From November 12, 1980, the land category of the instant case was changed to a road, the Defendant occupied and used the land as a road by incorporating it into the general national highway route No. 88. The land of the instant case was occupied and used as a road. The Defendant succeeded to the possession of the land during the period when the land category was changed as it was incorporated into the road route according to the Japanese colonial Division around November 9, 1942, when the land category was changed to the road route. The Defendant was incorporated into the general national highway route No. 36 and occupied and used as a road.
[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including paper numbers), Eul Nos. 1 and 2, and 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 is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of each of the lands of this case to the plaintiffs unless the defendant asserts and proves justifiable grounds for the possession and use of each of the lands of this case.
B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) As to the assertion on the prescriptive acquisition, the Defendant alleged as follows: (a) as to the land of this case, the period of prescription for the acquisition of possession as of November 12, 2000 after the lapse of 20 years from November 12, 1980, when the Defendant opened the general road No. 88 and opened the possession.