1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 4,268,268 and the interest thereon shall be 12% per annum from October 16, 2019 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Regarding the instant land, on November 23, 1978, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of deceased C, the father of the Plaintiff, and on March 9, 2002, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed, respectively.

B. The land of this case was transferred to the land category and actually used, and around August 13, 1975, the Defendant determined and announced as an inland urban planning facility (road) by the Defendant around August 13, 1975. Around 1980, a house near the land of this case began to be constructed, and was provided as a passage to the general public, and the Defendant thereafter covered the asphalt package on the land of this case and managed it as a road.

[Grounds for recognition] The results of each fact inquiry about the head of the Gu during the period of Ansan, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition 1 as above, the Defendant, who occupies and manages the instant land owned by the Plaintiff as a road, has occupied and used the instant land as a road offered to the general public for the passage of the general public without a justifiable title before July 11, 2013, at the time when the Plaintiff seeks the return of unjust enrichment. As such, the Defendant gains profit equivalent to the relevant usage fees.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from July 11, 2013 to the date of the completion of the Defendant’s occupation due to the closure of the road on the instant land, or from the date of the Plaintiff’s loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership. Moreover, as long as the Defendant occupied and used the instant land until the date of the closing of the argument in the instant case, but refused to fulfill the obligation to return unjust enrichment due to the rent that occurred continuously and repeatedly, the Defendant’s occupation due to the closure of the road on the instant land, or the due date due to the Plaintiff’s loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership.