beta
Text
1. The defendant against the plaintiff A,
(a) 5,172,00 won and 20% per annum from April 14, 2015 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 and 4 are owned by the Plaintiff A. The real estate is owned by the Plaintiff A. The real estate is owned by the Plaintiff B 1/17, the Plaintiff C 6/17, the Plaintiff C 6/17, the Plaintiff D, and E 4/17, and the network F 2/17, respectively. However, after the death of September 27, 1995, the F was jointly inherited as described in the separate sheet No. 2, C, D, and E 18/68, each of which is jointly inherited by the Plaintiff B, C, D, and E 18/68.
(hereinafter “instant land 1, 2, 3, and 4” and all of them are referred to as “instant land”). B.
From 1950 to 1950, the instant land is used as a road by including the instant land to be incorporated into a local highway. From February 1, 1992, the Defendant occupied and managed the instant land as a road management authority, and offered it for the general public’s passage.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 3, 5 through 20 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The allegations and judgment of the parties
A. According to the above basic facts, the Defendant, who occupies and manages the instant land as a road, has a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiffs, who are the owners of the instant land, unless there are special circumstances, such as the Defendant’s right to occupy the instant land. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the prescriptive acquisition has been completed since the instant land was incorporated into the road, as it occupied in peace and openly with the intent of ownership for at least 50 years. 2) According to the above basic facts, the Defendant, as the road management authority from February 1, 1992, occupied and managed the instant land as a road, and the possessor is presumed to have occupied the instant land in peace and openly and openly with the intent of ownership, and thus, the Defendant is presumed to have occupied the instant land as the road management authority from February 1, 1992.