1. The defendant shall pay 350,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from April 5, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. On April 5, 1951, the Plaintiff purchased the land indicated in the annexed real estate indication (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 7, 1965.

The instant land was used as a road at least since around 1948, and on November 5, 1971, the land category was changed from the previous “former” to the “road” (the real estate registration register entered the change of such land category in May 16, 2001), and around around 2001, the Defendant incorporated into B and contained the road in the road package, and offered it for public traffic.

The rent of the instant land is KRW 5,000 per month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant obtained the benefit equivalent to the occupancy and use profit by occupying and managing the instant land as the road site, and thereby, incurred damages to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the money equivalent to the rent, which is the profit from the use of the instant land, as unjust enrichment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion is as follows.

First, the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land.

Although the land of this case has been used as a road for about 68 years since 1948, there is no objection, demand for compensation, etc. by the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the land category of the instant land was changed to “road” in 1971.

In particular, even though the compensation procedure was implemented for many lands adjacent to the instant land at the time of the construction of a road between neighboring C around 1980, there is no objection or demand for payment of compensation or usage fees for the Defendant’s possession of the instant land.

Second, the Defendant occupied and used the instant land as a road site for about 68 years from around 1948.