1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 8,405,302 and for this, KRW 15% per annum from May 30, 2019 to May 31, 2019; and

1. Basic facts

A. Division of the instant land and inheritance relationship 1) The Plaintiff’s father and father are 816 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant division”) prior to the Plaintiff’s division in the Mosung-gun F.

(3) On April 8, 1972, G in Sung-gun G, 591, and 142, prior to D (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On the same day, the land category of the instant land was changed to a road on July 15, 1994, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff on January 7, 1976 for the instant land due to the consultation division inheritance on January 7, 1976.

B. The construction of roads and the Defendant’s road management 1) The Construction Bureau of the Central Land of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation of the Republic of Korea incorporated the instant land which was previously used into the road site at the time of the first repair works, and operated the road construction works. After which the Defendant had been managing the said I located within the Defendant’s jurisdiction from 1995 as a result of the implementation of the local road construction system. 2) On June 10, 2002, the Construction Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport publicly announced the decision on the road zone determined by J as a road zone, and on December 23, 2008, publicly announced the topographic map on the above road.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 82, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the defendant has occupied and used the land of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, at least as part of the J managed by the road management authority from around 2002, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant gains profit equivalent to the rent of the land of this case by using and earning profit from the land of this case without any legal cause, and suffered loss equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the use and profit of the land of this case

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion is the land of this case.