1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 7, 1964, Plaintiff’s attached to Plaintiff’s basic facts: (a) purchased 165 square meters in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 19, 1979; (b) donated the Plaintiff on July 14, 2005, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 19, 2005.

Of the above C land, the area of 60 square meters inboard (B) connected in sequence 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 5, 4, and 3, among the attached drawings, is used for the passage of residents, as a road packed in a container.

On the land of this case, the Road Packaging Corporation was implemented on the land of this case from 1996 to 2000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2-1 and 2-2, the result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation Kim Jong-chul, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff sought to remove this part of the Road Packing and deliver the land to the Plaintiff by asserting that the Defendant, on the land of this case, has developed it as a road and has occupied and used it by packaging the asphalt.

Therefore, first of all, the Defendant created a package construction work on the instant land and the possession and use thereof, and the mere fact that the road is constructed and provided for the passage of the general public.

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was in possession or on the land of this case, and otherwise, the defendant performed packing work on the land of this case.

there is no evidence to acknowledge that the person occupies or uses it.

(q) Although the instant land is being used as a road, it seems that it is not designated and publicly announced as a road under the Road Act or that it is not established as a road under the urban planning project, etc. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant of this case without any further reason to view it.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.