1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 26,783,480 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 15, 2016 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Before the subdivision, A Seocheon-si 772 was divided into 622 square meters and C 150 square meters on December 30, 1958, and C 150 square meters was divided into C 14 square meters and D 482 square meters on January 22, 1987 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. At the time of the Japanese occupation of occupation of the foundation A, the Japanese occupation of the foundation was purchased prior to the above division. After that, the Japanese occupation of the foundation was dissolved, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the establishment of the foundation.

C. On July 29, 2004, on the instant land, registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of the Defendant.

On January 27, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for intervention by the independent party against E and the Defendant, and was sentenced to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Na43036, 2009Na12077 (Intervention) that “The land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration cancellation of the above registration of preservation of ownership.”

The above judgment was finalized on February 18, 2010. D.

According to the above final judgment, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the land of this case was cancelled, and on June 16, 2010, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the plaintiff.

E. Since around 1986, the Defendant incorporated the instant land into national highways 43 lines, and possessed and used the instant land up to the present time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Establishment of obligation of return of unjust enrichment

A. The Defendant obtained unjust enrichment from the amount equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and shall be deemed to have inflicted losses on the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment 1, although the plaintiff knew that the land of this case was being used as a road, shall claim compensation for losses or usage fees to the defendant for a considerable period after the registration of ownership transfer.