1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 2,473,00 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 18, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty B, the Plaintiff’s father, around May 10, 1950, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on December 27, 1994. The Plaintiff around August 14, 2012.

2.9. He shall complete the registration of ownership transfer by agreement and division.

B. The instant real estate is classified as a road in the process of implementing the Saemaeul Movement around 1970, while it was actually used by the general public as a road, and is in possession of the Defendant until now.

C. Under the premise that the instant land is a road, the rent of the instant land is KRW 2,473,00 from October 6, 201 to October 5, 2016, and the monthly rent as of November 22, 2017 is KRW 54,00.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the result of the appraisal commission to the Vice-Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim. According to each of the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 54,00 per month from October 8, 201, the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to October 8, 2016, as claimed by the plaintiff, for unjust enrichment, KRW 2,473,00, which is the rent for the land of this case, and delay damages after October 6, 201, which was the time when the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case from October 5, 2016 to the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the plaintiff or the day when the plaintiff lost its ownership to the land of this case.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant already used the instant land as a road before being transferred to the road around 1970, and the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that he renounced the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land. Accordingly, according to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 4 and 6, the standard of January 1, 2007 of the instant land.