1. The Defendant is the Defendant with respect to KRW 16,040,000 and KRW 142 square meters on the road B at Seopo-si from July 10, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 10, 2012 with respect to B-road 142 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant provided the instant land to the general public for traffic and passage, and occupied and managed it.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 2 (including the provisional number), and the purport of the entire argument as to the obligation to return unjust enrichment. According to the above acknowledged facts, the defendant provided the land in this case as a passage to the general public, acquired profits by occupying and using it, and suffered losses to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the land to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land in this case, unless there is no proof of assertion as to the possessory right.

As to the defendant's argument, the defendant argued that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case with knowledge that the land category is changed to a road and is being used as a road site, and that there is no damage due to waiver of the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case.

In the event that a private land is naturally created or is actually used as a road for public traffic as it is classified into a prospective road site, the owner of the land grants the right to free traffic to neighboring residents or the general public by providing the land as a road, or gives up exclusive and exclusive rights to use the land, and the interpretation is made, the circumstances and the period he owns the land, the details and scale of the divided sale of the remaining land, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, the relationship with neighboring land, and the surrounding environment, etc.