1. The plaintiff and the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to the instant land and the forest land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) by the Daejeon District Court on April 9, 2004 and the registration of transfer of ownership as the receipt No. 63915 on June 22, 2004.

B. E, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party C, and D concluded a pre-sale agreement with the Plaintiff on February 23, 2009 with respect to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet, including the instant land, with respect to one-fourths of each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet, and completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim as the receipt No. 13747 on February 26, 2009.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selected Party C have completed the registration of the establishment of ownership transfer as of 3/8 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selected Party C purchased each of E’s shares from E on February 10, 2011). The Selected Party D purchased each of E’s shares of 1/8 shares of E from February 10, 201, on the ground of the completion of the pre-sale agreement on December 31, 2010 with respect to 2/8 shares of the instant land, and the registration of the establishment of ownership transfer as of April 23, 2013.

On April 28, 2009, pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Road of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, the Defendant publicly announced the section of 4.8 km starting from the Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan City to G as the “rural Road H” and as the subject of the basic rural road project.

Part of the land of this case is included in the route of the above road.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2, the result of the verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant occupies the land of this case without permission, so the amount equivalent to the rent of the land of this case shall be refunded to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

Specific amounts are as follows:

The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land from June 22, 2004 to April 22, 2013. Considering the extinctive prescription, the Plaintiff is the rental fee from June 2008 to April 22, 2013, which is five years before the date of the instant lawsuit, 16,045.