1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 31,410,300 per annum from May 18, 2018 to October 30, 2018; and

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) was completed in the name of the Republic of Korea. However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2017Gadan5219013) claiming the cancellation of the registration of cancellation on May 10, 2018 by asserting that the registration of cancellation on the instant land was null and void because the Plaintiff was aware of the instant land, and that the Plaintiff’s inheritance was solely carried out by himself, and that the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The Defendant is occupying and managing the instant land, the current status and land category of which are roads, as a road management authority.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-6, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is the owner who solely inherited the instant land as a successor to the assessment title of the instant land, and the Defendant, at least before May 16, 2013 seeking the return of unjust enrichment, recognized that the Plaintiff is using and benefit from the instant land as a de facto controlling entity of the instant land without title.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent from May 16, 2013 to the date on which the Defendant’s occupation was terminated or the date on which the Plaintiff loses its ownership.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The land of this case was provided free of charge for the passage of the general public for a long time, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and its preference have renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case, and the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable. 2) The Defendant knows the land of this case as state-owned land before the lawsuit of this case is filed.