1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) As regards KRW 14,910,00 and KRW 10,000 among them, KRW 4,910,000 from January 17, 2017 to KRW 4,910,00.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the instant land, B completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 14, 1963 due to the sale on March 29, 1963, and B died on January 6, 1969, C completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 4131 on February 12, 2014 by reason of inheritance due to the consultation and division of inherited property on the same day.

B. On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from C on February 18, 201 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of the Seodaemun Registry of this Court on February 21, 2014.

C. The instant land was determined and publicly announced as a street from among urban planning facilities on August 5, 1971 pursuant to Article 463 of the Construction Division Notification No. 463 on August 5, 1971, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City finished the compartmentalization and rearrangement project for neighboring land on March 15, 1976, and opened and occupied a return-to-door asphalt road, and the Defendant was harmful to the management point from around May 1, 198 when the Local Autonomy Act went into effect.

From 1963 to 1963, the land category in each public record of the instant land is “site”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where the State or a local government’s possession of the land for which the cause of the return of unjust enrichment occurred and the exclusive use of and benefit from the land is restricted by the general public, barring special circumstances, such as the owner’s waiver of the exclusive use of and benefit from the land, the State or the local government shall be deemed to have obtained the benefits from occupying and using the land, and the landowner shall be deemed to have suffered the equivalent damages.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8914 Decided February 1, 2008, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant occupied and used the instant land from before the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land to the date of the closing of argument in this case.