1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 125,440,682 and the interest thereon shall be 15% per annum from September 24, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 12, 1970, Gu, Si, B B B B (hereinafter “instant land”) is located within the road zone of C (as of January 10, 1974, changed to D) as of May 12, 197.

B. The defendant is using the land of this case by incorporating it into the road from that time.

C. On November 20, 1971, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on November 19, 1971 with respect to Gumi-si B, Gumi-si, B, 96.

From 96, the land of this case remains due to the division on March 18, 1972 from Gu, Si, Si, Gu, Dong, B, 96.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of obligation of return of unjust enrichment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to return the land of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstance, since the defendant occupied and used the land of this case without any legal ground to gain profit equivalent to the rent and thereby suffered loss equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiff who is the owner of the land.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, around May 12, 1970, the Defendant: (a) occupied the instant land in peace and public performance for not less than 20 years after the instant land was incorporated into C in the middle and the present period; (b) the prescriptive acquisition has been completed; (c) there is no circumstance that it is difficult to expect submission of documents regarding the procedure for acquiring the relevant land, such as the cadastral record, etc. on the land incorporated into the road site for determination, etc. was destroyed by a disturbance of 625, or did not exist for any other reason; and (d) there is no indication that the State, etc. may regard the ownership as lawful acquisition in the cadastral record or the registry, etc., and rather, it is stated that the ownership of