1. The defendant

(a) 8,623,720 won and a rate of 12% per annum from July 19, 2019 to the date of complete payment.

1. Following the death of F, which had been owned from 1970, the land entered in the text of the basic facts, the Plaintiff inherited the land independently in 2005 through the agreement on the division of inherited property.

On October 20, 1975, the defendant changed the land category of the land on which he owned the land to the road, and then incorporated it into the road at that time, and provided it for the passage of the general public after having conducted the asphalt package.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the obligation to return unjust enrichment has arisen;

A. According to the facts of finding the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the use of the land in possession, barring special circumstances.

B. 1) The summary of the Defendant’s defense of the completion of acquisition by prescription is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s defense against the completion of acquisition by prescription by way of peace and performance with the intent to own the above land for at least twenty (20) years; (b) there is no obligation to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment; and (c) in a case where it is proved that the possessor of the relevant legal doctrine was aware of the absence of legal requirements such as a juristic act that may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession

This is the case where the state arbitrarily incorporates the private land into the road site without a title to occupy the land.

Therefore, there is no circumstance that it is difficult to expect submission of documents concerning the acquisition procedure of the land because the cadastral record, etc. on the land incorporated into the road site was destroyed by the disturbance of 6.25, or did not exist due to other reasons. Moreover, there is no indication that the State, etc. can regard the ownership as legitimate acquisition in the cadastral record, registry, etc., and rather, the ownership of the former