1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,930,669 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 19, 2018 to November 12, 2019 for the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B large 22 square meters and C large 20 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land” at the same time, and when it is separately named, it shall be specified as a parcel number).

B. The Defendant, while performing the construction work of the D Urban Planning Road established between March 21, 2006 and December 26, 2008, has incorporated the instant land into a road site, has occupied and used it as a road from March 21, 2006 to December 26, 2008.

(18. 0. 22. See the 2, 3 pages of the Answer of October 22.

As a result of the rent appraisal conducted on the instant land under the premise of the use as “site”, the outcome of the rent appraisal conducted on the instant land is as shown in attached Form 1, and the result of the land C is as listed in attached Form 2.

【Ground for Recognition: In the absence of dispute, the result of the court's entrustment of appraisal to the Vice-Governor of the Gyeonggi Gyeonggi-do.

2. According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, the defendant occupies the land of this case, which was not originally used for the traffic of the general public, without permission, as a road.

As such, there is a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rental fee.

On the other hand, when the State or a local government occupies a road as a road by constructing a road pursuant to the Road Act, etc. or performing construction works in fact necessary for the traffic of the general public, the basic price of the land to calculate the amount of unjust enrichment shall be limited to the road, i.e., the current state of the road, in a case where the State or a local government occupies a road as a de facto controlling entity. However, in a case where the State or a local government occupies a land which is not in fact public use for the traffic of the general public as a road, it shall be appraised according to the actual conditions of use as at the time of its incorporation, without considering the circumstances

(Supreme Court Decision 97Da35559 delivered on November 14, 1997). Therefore, the Defendant is considered to be “site” to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.