1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land on the registry. At least on July 27, 1972, the land category of the instant land has been changed from the answer to “road,” and is used for the general public’s traffic.

(C) The Plaintiff asserts that the land of this case is used as a road without any title without permission. On November 4, 201, the Plaintiff sought unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent stated in the claim after November 4, 201. On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that, even if the land of this case was purchased from the Plaintiff or the purchase was not recognized at the time of including it into the access road, the period of prescription for acquisition had already been completed, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

However, there is no direct evidence to prove that the Defendant completed the compensation procedure for the land of this case from the Plaintiff (i.e., the payment of the land price), but there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant has occupied and used the land of this case for at least 20 years from around 1972 to the present date, and since it is presumed that the Defendant has occupied the land of this case in good faith, peace, and public performance pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, if the nature of the source of right of possession of real estate is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the land in good faith, peace, and public performance pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, and such presumption is also presumed to have been occupied

In addition, even if the possessor asserts the right of possession, such as the purchase and sale or donation, but this is not recognized, the presumption of possession with the sole reason that the possessor is not recognized as the possessor is reversed or that the possessor is in the nature of the possessor's possession.