1. The claims of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the Appointed B are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the Parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, 10 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the appraiser C’s appraisal results, and the entire purport of the pleadings.

The land Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D is divided into the above E land on July 28, 1964, and was combined with the above F land on April 11, 1978, and became a site of 152m2m.

(2) On the other hand, the above F land was divided from the above G land on July 28, 1964.

B. Around February 4, 1964, H applied for permission to open a private road of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, E, and G land prior to its own partition, and the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government permitted the opening of a private road of H on February 15, 1964.

C. Of the instant land, part 24m2 of the “B” portion of the instant land, which connects each point of No. 6, 7, 8, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in sequence, is part of the private road opened by H with permission as referred to in the preceding paragraph. Since then, the Defendant’s packaging as sidewalk block is currently being used.

On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party B completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 30, 2009 with respect to each of the shares of 1/2 shares in the instant land on April 30, 2009, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 14, 2017 to J and K on May 14, 2017.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s assertion between the Plaintiff (Appointed) and the Appointed B without authority is entitled to return the instant portion owned by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed B to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on April 30, 2009 to June 14, 2017, by occupying the said portion of the road by packing the instant portion of the road and providing it for the public’s passage, and thus obtaining unjust enrichment equivalent to the usage fee.

However, from April 30, 2009 to March 31, 2017, appropriate usage fees for the above road portion are 9.