1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant

A. Of the size of 465 square meters prior to the Incheon Cheongjin-gun, it is marked 1, 2.2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 30, 1965, the Plaintiff’s shape C, which is the Plaintiff’s shape, is one of the process of changing the ownership of 465 square meters prior to the Incheon Bapo-gun, Incheon Bapo-gun (hereinafter “D”) 1,908 square meters prior to D on June 30, 1965

(2) D land was divided on May 11, 2015 and transferred to 1,443 square meters prior to D and 465 square meters prior to D, which was completed on October 16, 194.

3) On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff is entitled to the instant land not exceeding 465 square meters prior to the said B (hereinafter “instant land”).

(B) On June 19, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of gift made from June 19, 2015. (B) Of the instant land, part (b) part (b) of 1,2,3,4, and 125 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) was used as the passage of neighboring residents since before around 1981, and functioned as part of the road to go to F, a village, which was the village back.

2) Although it is not known when the first concrete package was executed on the instant site, the Defendant, a local government having jurisdiction over the administrative district of the instant land, removed the existing concrete package from February 2, 2009 to July 2009, laid an excellent pipe in the underground of the instant site, and re-exported the instant site into concrete. On around February 2013, the Plaintiff, a local government, which was a local government having jurisdiction over the administrative district of the instant land, performed the project for the re-exploiting of the instant site, and then packages the instant site into A-mixed upon the residents’ recommendation. [Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Party A’s 1 to 6, 10, and 11 copies (including each number; hereinafter

(1) Each entry and video of the evidence referred to in sub-paragraph (1) to (7) and the purport of the whole pleading;

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant site and is in possession of the instant site, claims the removal of the instant site and the delivery of the said site, based on ownership, against the Defendant. The Plaintiff also claims a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

B. The defendant's assertion is the site of this case.