A. Since June 19, 1978, the Plaintiff owned 54-1 large 224960 m2.1 m2, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. On May 22, 1980, the Plaintiff was divided into 54-57 m2 and the land category was changed to a road on the same day.

(hereinafter above 54-57 Land is referred to as “instant land”). (b)

The defendant is occupying and using the road packaging on the land of this case, which is commonly used for the traffic of the general public, and the sewage pipe is laid underground.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 7-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the fact that the obligation to return unjust enrichment was established, the Defendant is obligated to return the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, as the benefit accrued from occupying and using the instant land as the road, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) asserts that the plaintiff cannot claim the return of unjust enrichment, since the plaintiff voluntarily provided the land of this case as a road by dividing it into a road in order to maximize the utility value of the land before the division of the original wide area, and provided free of charge for the purchaser of neighboring land and the general public to use the land of this case as a passage, the plaintiff may not claim the return of unjust enrichment.

(2) If a private land is naturally occurring or is classified into a proposed road site and actually being used as a road for the public traffic of the general public, if the owner of the land grants the right to free traffic to neighboring residents or the general public by providing the land as a road or gives up the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, the developments and period during which the land was owned, and the details and scale of the sale in installments, of the remaining land;