1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2.Pursuant to a counterclaim brought in the trial.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 20, 1914, the 1,532 Ha-dong, Ha-dong, Ha-dong, Ha-dong, Seoul, was under the circumstances of D.

Afterwards, the above land was divided into E No. 425 square meters on October 12, 1926, the instant land and the F No. 737 square meters, respectively, and D is written as the owner in the old land cadastre of each of the above land.

B.D died on February 1, 1931, and G, its grandchildren, was inherited by Australia.

After that, G died on June 25, 1981, and H, the Plaintiff, and I jointly inherited the property of G. On June 26, 201, the Plaintiff, H, and I agreed on the division of inherited property to solely inherit the land of this case.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership on June 26, 2014, on the instant land, which was about two months before the filing of the instant lawsuit.

C. Since the land category of the instant land was changed to a road on October 12, 1926, the Defendant occupied and used the said land as a road until the date of closing argument in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Defendant occupied and used the instant land owned by the Plaintiff as a road, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment from August 28, 2009 due to the occupation and use of the instant land.

B. Since the Defendant, from October 12, 1926, occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intent to own the instant land from around October 12, 1926, and acquired prescription, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on October 12, 1946 to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition of the Defendant’s acquisition by prescription under Paragraph (1) above, the instant land is presumed to have been acquired as a result of the circumstance in the name D, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the said land in succession, and thus, it is deemed to be the Plaintiff’s ownership. Accordingly, special circumstances exist.