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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 158,676,982 as well as to the plaintiff on January 2016.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "each land of this case" in the 3th, 13, 5, 19, 20, and 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to "each real estate of this case"; the 6th, 2 through 8th, 21th, as follows; and the 4th, 21th "road" shall be added to "(in light of the packing condition, etc. of each real estate of this case, it is difficult to see that a specific individual or neighboring resident has packed the road, and there is no evidence to see that another person other than the defendant has packed the road)"; therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition to "the ground for the judgment of first instance".

2. Revised portion 3) The Defendant asserts to the effect that a claim for return of unjust enrichment arising from the possession and use of each real estate of this case, which occurred five years prior to the filing date of the instant lawsuit under Article 82 of the Local Finance Act, has expired due to the completion of prescription. Article 82 of the Local Finance Act provides that “The extinctive prescription period shall expire unless the right of a local government or the right to a local government, which aims to pay money, is exercised for five years, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts with respect to the prescription.” The purport of the provision is that the cause of the payment of money is under public law or private law, and the rights of a local government or the right to a local government, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts, shall be five years, and the provision on the short-term extinctive prescription period shall apply only to a claim that takes a shorter short short period of extinctive prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da28712, Feb. 25, 2005).