1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 21, 1970 with respect to B-road B 149 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”) and C-road 13 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”) on October 21, 1970 with respect to each of the above land on November 21, 1970.

B. The land category of the instant case was changed from January 8, 1975 to “road”, and the Defendant occupied each of the instant land as a road from around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the defendant acquired profits equivalent to the profits from the use of each of the land of this case by occupying and using it as a road, and as a result, he suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiff who is the owner. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the unjust enrichment from the above possession and use to the plaintiffs, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendant asserts that the acquisition by prescription by possession of each of the instant lands was completed since the Defendant completed compensation procedures in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and used each of the instant lands as the neighboring lands, as well as the neighboring lands, and occupied the said land in peace and openly with the intent to own the said land for at least 20 years, the acquisition by prescription by possession was completed.

If the nature of the source of possessory right of real estate is not clear, the possessor shall be presumed to have occupied the source in good faith, peace, and public performance by his/her own will pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. The same shall apply to cases where the State or a local government, which

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da33866, Aug. 19, 2010). The Defendant provided each of the instant land to the general public for traffic, and occupied and managed it as roads.