1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. Total costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 23, 2000, H 595 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned a network I (hereinafter “the deceased”). The deceased died on March 23, 200 and succeeded to the proportion of 1/7 of each of the Plaintiffs.

B. On December 20, 1958, the land category of the instant case was changed from “the street” to “road,” and the Republic of Korea occupied the instant land as a road from that time.

C. The defendant succeeded to the possession of the Republic of Korea from January 1, 1962 according to the Road Act, which came into force on January 1, 1962, and occupies the land of this case as a road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim, etc.

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant acquired the benefits equivalent to the benefits from the use of the land of this case by occupying or using it as a road, and as a result, suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiffs who are its owners. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the unjust enrichment from the above possession or use to the plaintiffs, unless there are special circumstances.

B. 1) The Defendant asserts that in the process of creating K Park in the land of this case, the land of this case was used as a road after completing compensation procedures under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as well as other nearby land, and that the said land was occupied by peace and openly and openly for at least 20 years as owner’s intent and acquired by prescription. 2) In a case where the nature of the possessor’s right of possession of real estate is unclear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the real estate in good faith, peace and openly and openly as owner’s intent pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. The same applies to the case where the State or a local government, which is the managing

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da33866 Decided August 19, 2010