1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a)1,994,400 won;

(b) Roads B from July 3, 2018 to Ansan-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase B road B 307 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 7, 2017.

B. On September 1, 1919, the instant land was partitioned into the land previously owned by Ansan-si, Seoul (hereinafter “the land before subdivision”). On October 23, 1919, the land category was changed from “B” to “road.” Since that time, the Defendant occupied and managed the instant land, and currently used as part of the main road connected to national highways D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant occupied the instant land owned by the Plaintiff without authority and used it as a road, thereby gaining unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of use and profit, and thus, returned it to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money equivalent to the rent of the instant land from December 7, 2017, which is the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership on the instant land, to the end of the Defendant’s possession of the instant land.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that: (a) the former owner of the instant land has donated the instant land without compensation to the Defendant; or (b) the former owner has received compensation from the Defendant for the transfer of the instant land; and (c) given up the exclusive right to use and benefit from the use of the instant land as a road, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for return of unjust enrichment with the Defendant.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above argument.

Next, the fact that the former owners of the instant land did not raise any objection to the Defendant’s road occupation does not conflict between the parties, and the instant land is currently being used as part of the main road connecting the national highways D.