1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 121,50,200 per annum from February 10, 2013 to October 2, 2013; and

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as set forth in Evidence A Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 2-1, 2, and 3-1, 2-3, respectively.

On July 10, 1970, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 1/4 shares of each of the B B Dae-gu, Busan, 267 square meters (hereinafter “instant land 1”) and C 24 square meters (hereinafter “instant land 2, 1977”).

B. On May 21, 1976, the land category of the instant land was changed to a road. The Defendant, around that time, included each of the instant land into a part of the road site while performing construction works for expanding the industrial roads (i.e., Busan Educational University) in front of the Busan Educational University, and thereafter, has been entering the land into a part of the road site.

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant obtained profits by occupying and using the above land from the incorporation of each of the above land into the above industry, and thereby caused damage to the plaintiff who is the right holder of the right to the claim.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of each land of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the claim regarding the land compensation 1) alleged that the Defendant made a land compensation to the Plaintiff, who is the right holder of the 1/4 share of the instant land incorporated into the road site, while performing the extension works for the industrial road in front of the Busan Educational University around 1976. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the land compensation only by the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including each number), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion regarding the prescriptive acquisition is without merit.