1. The defendant against the plaintiff A,

(a) KRW 5,384,055 and interest thereon shall be 15% per annum from January 12, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2, 1973, Plaintiff A is called “1, 2 land below 1, 2 land” listed in the attached list on October 2, 1973.

for the same year.

9. 24. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale, and the plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on the 10th of the same month with respect to the land on July 15, 1974 (which belongs to the original DD land at the beginning, but was divided into the land on October 20, 1987).

B. On December 20, 1975, in the case of one land, two land was changed from January 17, 1990 to three land, and on October 20, 1987, the land category was changed from “former” to “road.

C. As above, the Defendant occupied and managed the land category 1 through 3 as a road before and after the time of the change of land category as seen above (in the case of the land 3, the “three-lanes as E” (hereinafter “instant road”) under the Jeju City’s jurisdiction around the land category change.

) The road packing works have been carried out as incorporated. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 8 (including additional evidence), Eul evidence 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant gains profits by occupying and using land 1 or 3 through the method of providing them for the passage of the general public, and thereby causes losses to the plaintiffs who are owners of each of the above lands. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the occupation and use of each of the above lands to the plaintiffs.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of prescriptive acquisition is presumed to have been occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intention of ownership (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). As such, in principle, the possessor is not liable for proving that he/she has occupied as his/her own intent when claiming prescriptive acquisition, and rather, the possessor bears the burden of proof by asserting that his/her possession was not made with the intention of ownership.