The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

1. With respect to the waiver of exclusive use rights, in a case where a certain private land is naturally created or incorporated into a proposed road site and actually used as a road for the public traffic, if the owner of the land voluntarily provides such land as a road and grants the right to passage without compensation to the neighboring residents or the general public or gives up exclusive use and profit-making rights to the land, the decision should be made by comprehensively examining the following: the circumstance and the holding period that the land was owned by him/her; the details and scale of the divided sale of the remaining land; the location and nature of the land to be used as the road; the relationship with the neighboring land; and the surrounding environment; and the degree of contribution to the remaining land for the effective use and profit-making of the divided and sold land.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da34206, Nov. 11, 2007; 2012Da35170, Nov. 15, 2012). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff, the owner of each of the instant lands, provided each of the instant lands to a road by itself as a road; (b) granted a neighboring resident or the general public the right to free access; or (c) given a waiver of the exclusive and exclusive right to use each of the instant lands.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of violating the rules of evidence or misapprehending the legal principles on the waiver of exclusive use rights.

2. As to the calculation standard of unjust enrichment

(a) The rent for the land that the State or a local government occupies and uses as a road;