beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted on March 12, 1979, acquired the ownership of the land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”). On August 7, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred its ownership to the Nonparty Forest District Housing Association.
From March 12, 1979, the Defendant, who acquired the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land, transferred the instant land to a road and provided it for the general public to occupy and use it without any legal ground and thereby, incurred loss to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant land.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff fees of KRW 16,00,000 for five years prior to June 29, 2017, which is the filing date of the instant lawsuit (i.e., the value of the instant land x 40,000,000 per annum x 5 percent per annum x 5 years) and monthly usage fees of KRW 16,00 (2,00,000 ± 12) for one month from June 30, 2017, when the Plaintiff lost its ownership from August 6, 2017, and delay damages of KRW 10,16,000 per annum.
2. Whether the defendant occupied the land of this case
A. The possession of a road by the State or a local government can be divided into possession as a road management authority and possession as a de facto controlling entity. As such, first of all, the possession as a road management authority may be recognized from the time of the public announcement of the recognition of routes under the Road Act or the determination of a road zone, or the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act. In addition, even if the construction of a road is not conducted by the State or a local government under the Road Act, the possession as a road management authority may be recognized. In addition, if the land was for public use by the State or a local government for the traffic of the general public, it shall be deemed that it was under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and possession as a controlling entity may be recognized.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da21517 delivered on August 25, 2005). B.
. The above.