The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 1973, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of D 423 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land”) on the ground of inheritance of property.

B. The land of this case was used as a de facto road since before 1969, and its category was changed to a road on November 15, 1969. When the defendant implements an urban planning project around 1996, the defendant occupied and managed the land after being incorporated into an E-Urban Planning Road (F and G).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances, since he occupies and uses the land of this case.

B. The defendant's defense is a defense that the plaintiff renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case around 1996 or the defendant occupied the land of this case with an intention to occupy the land of this case for at least 20 years, and thus the acquisition by prescription cannot be complied with.

In accordance with the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant, when carrying out the E-Urban Planning Road (F, G) and packing business in 196, was additionally incorporated into the road where three lots, including the plaintiff-owned H, adjacent to the land of this case, were expanded around May 1996, he purchased the above three parcels and paid the purchase price to the plaintiff. However, with respect to the land of this case, the land of this case was already used as a road for 20 years or longer since its land category was changed to the road at the time of the change into the road, and thus, the plaintiff did not pay any compensation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also received or did not claim any compensation with respect to the land of this case, and there is no counter-proof.

In addition, the land category of this case has already been changed to a road in 1969, and thereafter, it has been used as a road until now.