사용수익권포기 의제기한경과 확인
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff asserted that although the land transfer and the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant against the land of this case were lost, the period during which the right to use and benefit from the land of this case was deemed to have been waived is up to September 25, 1998 when the land of this case was lost the function of the road, and that the installation of sewage pipes was not allowed in the underground of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that there was no waiver of the exclusive right to use and benefit
2. ex officio determination on the legitimacy of the suit requires that the subject of the suit for confirmation is the current legal relationship of rights, and the factual relationship cannot be the subject of the suit.
In this case, the Health Unit and the subject of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation is until September 25, 1998, the period for deeming the waiver of the right to use and benefit from the land of this case to September 25, 1998, but it did not waive the right to use and benefit from the underground of the land of this case, which is not seeking the confirmation of the legal relationship of rights but seeking the confirmation of such factual relations. Therefore,
(On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Daejeon District Court on January 6, 2012, to remove the asphalt packing installed on the ground of the instant land against the Defendant and remove sewage pipes installed on the ground of the instant land, and deliver the instant land and return the unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the first instance court (2012No. 1181), second instance court (201Na1280), third instance (201), and third instance (2013Da213434) to the effect that “the instant land was actually used as a road for general traffic from around at least 1972 to increase the overall utility of the instant land.”