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

A. On August 3, 198, the Plaintiff purchased and owned B 3,421 square meters of land (hereinafter “land before subdivision”) in Pakistan-si, Pakistan-si, and the entire land at that time was used as farmland for agriculture.

B. On August 12, 1991, the Defendant designated the part of B 742 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the PP as an urban planning facility (D) by the Gyeonggi-do Public NoticeC at the same time in the form of “A” at the PP PP.

C. The Plaintiff sold the land before subdivision from around 1993 to around 2013 in sequence 11 times, and only the ownership of the instant land, which is the remaining land after subdivision, is owned.

The land category of five parcels among the partitioned and sold land has been changed by each owner from around 1994 to 1995 to the site, and the building was newly constructed on the ground around that time. From that time, the land in this case is provided as the owner of the divided land and the general public through passage.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry into the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 5 through 8, 10, Eul evidence 1 through 6, 8 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant land is designated as a road, and that it is occupied and used without permission by including it into a road as a water supply and drainage pipe, sewage treatment pipe, urban gas pipe, etc., and seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the profits from the use of the said land.

B. As to this, the defendant cannot be deemed to possess the land of this case, and the plaintiff has renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case, so he cannot seek unjust enrichment from the defendant.

3. Determination

A. The form of possession by the State or a local government can be divided into possession as a road management authority and possession as a de facto controlling entity.