1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. One-six of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C around 1938, around 1938, completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land B of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “D”) 176 square meters and 7 Hobbe (584 square meters). Since then, the land category was changed to a road on March 14, 1940.

B. On January 6, 197, the Yangyang Industry Co., Ltd. completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B 584.1 square meters on a road, and the said road was divided into B 308.7 square meters on December 29, 2006 (hereinafter “instant land”) and E 275.4 square meters on a road.

C. On December 5, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land due to sale.

On the other hand, around August 197, the Defendant decided the instant land as an urban planning facility (road) with respect to the instant land. The Defendant occupied and managed the instant land and provided it for the passage of the general public.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 11 evidence, Eul 1 to 17 evidence, and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to return the unjust enrichment from the possession of the land in this case to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances, since the defendant gains profit without any legal grounds by providing the land in this case to the general public for possession and use, and thereby, sustained damage to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land in this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserted that the instant land was incorporated into, or donated to, a road site pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations at the time when the land category was changed to a road, and even if not, C, the former owner of the instant land, renounced its exclusive and exclusive use rights. The Defendant asserted that the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land was completed by occupying the instant land in peace and public performance for not less than 20 years from the time when the land category was changed to a road.