1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The facts of recognition ① On February 23, 1960, the Plaintiff purchased the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Seongbuk-gu 989 (hereinafter “the mother land of this case”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 24, 1960.

② On May 21, 1970, the Plaintiff filed an application for the division of land with respect to the mother land of this case. The Plaintiff divided the E 1st response and C 44 square meters from the mother land of this case, and D 744 square meters remaining.

(hereinafter “instant primary division”). (3) On June 5, 1970, the Plaintiff applied for subdivision of land again, and accordingly, from D 744 to D 744, F 236 square meters divided and D 508 square meters remaining, and C 0.7 square meters divided from C 44 square meters and C 43.3 square meters remaining.

[2] The Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for land division on August 1, 1970; (b) the land was divided from D 508 square meters to H or I; and (c) most of the divided land was divided into a site and formed into a housing site. (d) The Plaintiff filed an application for land division on August 1, 1970.

As such, a large number of land created by the housing site was sold to a third party, and a building such as a house seems to have been constructed on the housing site.

⑤ At the time of the first subdivision of the instant land, the actual state of partition is as follows. The location and shape of the land divided from the mother land of this case, including the instant land, are as follows. The location and shape of the land divided from the mother land of this case is as follows.

The land of this case is being used as a road in a sealed state.

[Afforestation 1] [Attachment 1] [Ground for Recognition] / [Ground for Recognition] ; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4; Eul evidence No. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers) or video; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The purport of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant gains unjust enrichment from occupying and using the land of this case owned by the plaintiff as the road site without any legal ground. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is followed.