1. Of the parts against the principal suit of the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount of money ordered to be paid in paragraph 2 below.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned B road B 400 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership preservation pursuant to Article 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, which was enforced on May 17, 1995 (amended by Act No. 7500, May 26, 2005).

B. The road of this case was divided into Yongcheon-si D on November 25, 1938, and its category was changed to a road on the same day.

C. The instant road is included in the route of Chapter II as a road of Yongcheon City, Incheon, along the connection of the FM distance in Yongcheon-si to G private distance, and is used as a road of Chapter II as a city of Yongcheon-si.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above recognition that the obligation to return unjust enrichment occurred, the Defendant, a local government, occupied and used the instant road by providing it as a road used for the general public’s passage, and the Defendant does not seem to have the right to use and benefit from the road without compensation.

Therefore, the Defendant, without any legal ground, obtained a benefit equivalent to the rent, and thereby, incurred a loss equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant road. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent of the instant road to the unjust enrichment.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant's claim against the defendant's land is the land that the defendant uses as the road through legitimate procedures, and the road of this case has been acquired by prescription, and the plaintiff has renounced exclusive and exclusive rights to use and profit from the road of this case, or acquired it with the permission or well-known limit to use and profit from the road of this

The road of this case is partitioned by the Defendant around 1938.