1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 10, 1966, the Plaintiff completed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the area of 96 square meters (317 square meters) in Gyeyang-gu B prior to the subdivision of Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul. The Plaintiff owned the said land from that time.

B. On March 9, 191, the said land was divided into 66 square meters (218 square meters) and 30 square meters (9 square meters) before C on March 9, 1991. Meanwhile, the land B before the said re-division was used as a road since the 1970s, and the land category on December 20, 1970 changed from “B” to “road”; on January 14, 1971, the said land was changed to “road”; and around January 14, 1971, there was a resolution to designate the said land as non-taxable land by dividing it into B24 square meters of road and D road 75 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The registration of the re-division was completed on June 25, 191.

C. The Defendant, at least from around the above 1970, occupied the instant land as a road and occupied it.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant occupies and uses the land of this case as the Do without any legal grounds. Thus, the owner, who is the owner, is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the profit of use.

B. (1) The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff renounced his exclusive and exclusive right to use the land of this case, or the defendant occupied the land of this case from January 14, 1971, and thus the acquisition by prescription has been completed, and thus, the defendant did not have a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

(2) In full view of the determination as to the assertion on the waiver of exclusive right to use, the above recognition, and the statement in the evidence No. B, the Plaintiff owned a lot of land in the vicinity of the instant land and used the instant land as a road from around 1970, and the Plaintiff’s land among them.