1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 17,614,80 as well as to the plaintiff on May 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 10, 1980, C, the Plaintiff’s attached, purchased a 195m2 in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 195m2 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the above land on November 11, 1980.

On August 31, 1981, the above 195 square meters in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu was divided into 15 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and 180 square meters in Ulsan-gu B-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do. On the same day, the land category was changed to 180 square meters in Ulsan-gu B-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do B-do, 180 square meters in size.

B. On July 13, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land due to inheritance by agreement division.

C. Around December 30, 1974, the Defendant determined the instant land as E urban planning facilities (road) by litigation, and subsequently changed the instant land to G by litigation according to the F Public Notice of the Gyeongnam-do.

The land of this case is currently being used as a road until now.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, fact inquiry results in Ulsan Metropolitan City by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant who occupies the road of this case gains a profit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the land of this case without any legal cause after the construction of the road, and thereby has sustained a considerable loss to the plaintiff.

In addition, even after the date of the closing of the argument in this case, it is clear that the defendant's possession of the road in this case is terminated, or the plaintiff gains profit equivalent to the rent until he loses ownership of the road in this case, and thereby causes damage to the plaintiff.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the occupation and use of the instant road.

B. On the Defendant’s assertion, H, the former owner of the instant land, is the purpose of conducting the housing site development project.