1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay 8,247,600 won to the plaintiff and the defendant shall pay 8,247,600 won on June 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2, 1967, the Plaintiff purchased 366 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”) from Suwon-si Pdong (hereinafter “Pdong”) E, Suwon-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

B. The land prior to the instant partition is in the shape of narrow and long width. On February 26, 1975, the urban planning was determined and publicly announced on the part of the land prior to the instant partition, which installs urban planning facilities (road) with a width of eight meters (hereinafter “instant public notice”).

C. ① Division of F land was made on June 30, 1983 from the land before the instant partition. ② In other words, E’s land divided into 275 square meters prior to G on April 24, 1984 and 337 square meters prior to H, and ③ on October 2, 1984, B was divided into 10 square meters prior to G 275 square meters, and 337 square meters prior to H was divided into 106 square meters and 44 square meters prior to K.

B and J-owned land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) was the part of the land determined as urban planning facilities by the instant public notice, and was divided into eight meters wide depending on the road line. At the time of the division, the land was actually used as a road. On October 18, 1984, the land category was changed to a road upon the Plaintiff’s application, and was combined into 116 square meters on April 12, 2013.

E. On May 3, 1984, the Plaintiff newly built a house (hereinafter “instant housing”) on G land (hereinafter “instant housing site”) upon obtaining a building permit from the competent authority, and received a completion inspection on November 1, 1984.

F. Even after the instant public notice, the Plaintiff continued to own the instant land and the F and G land adjacent thereto for at least 40 years, and sold the F land to O on December 31, 2012.

【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】 The statements and images of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7-2 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9, 13 and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant occupied and used the instant land as a road without any legal ground.