2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

② The Defendant is occupying the instant land, which is buried as a sewage pipe on the instant land and packages it into a road until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 18, and there is no dispute

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant, by occupying and using the instant land as a road, obtained the benefits of use equivalent to the rent from the Plaintiff without any legal ground, and inflicted damages equivalent to the same amount on the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment corresponding to the rent of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

B. The former owner of the land of this case renounced exclusive and exclusive rights to use the land of this case by providing the land of this case without compensation, and the Plaintiff also acquired the ownership of the land of this case with such circumstances or knowledge at least, so the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for return of unjust enrichment with the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. Legal doctrine 1) In a case where a landowner provided his/her own land for public use, such as a road and a site laid underground, the following: (a) the owner’s course and period of holding the land; (b) the details and scale of the owner’s provision of the land for public use; (c) the existence of the owner’s interest or benefits from the provision of the land; (d) the location or form of the relevant part of the land; (e) the relationship with the neighboring land and the surrounding environment; and (e) the comparative balancing between the landowner’s ownership guarantee and the public interest, if the owner may be deemed to have waived the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the relevant land, the State

possession and use of such land.

Even if there are special circumstances.