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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 20, 1927, prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership of each of the instant lands, the Plaintiff incorporated each of the instant lands into the road without any title while implementing the road expansion project, and thereafter, gained unjust enrichment by occupying and managing each of the instant lands as a road. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff during the period from March 28, 2008 when the Plaintiff acquired ownership of each of the instant lands to April 1, 2014, which was the filing date of the instant lawsuit.

B. The former owner of each land of this case renounced exclusive rights to use and benefit from each land of this case, and the Plaintiff also acquired ownership of each land of this case at least with the knowledge of such circumstances, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for return of unjust enrichment with the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. In the event that a private land is naturally occurring or is classified into a road site and actually used as a road for the public traffic, the owner of the land directly provides that the land as a road and grants the right to free traffic to neighboring residents or the general public or gives up exclusive and exclusive rights to use the land, and the interpretation of the land is done by the owner of the land. There are various circumstances, such as the circumstance and period he/she owned the land, the circumstance and scale of the sale of the land in installments, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, the relationship with neighboring land, and the surrounding environment.