The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected all the allegations that: (a) the Defendant, on each of the instant lands owned by the Plaintiff, obtained benefits without any legal ground by installing an entrance and using it; and (b) thereby inflicted damages on the Plaintiff, who is the owner of each of the instant lands; and (c) the Defendant should return the unlawful gains to the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the Plaintiff consented to the donation or use of each of the instant lands to the Defendant without compensation; (b) the Plaintiff waived the exclusive right to use and benefit from each of the instant lands; or (c) the Plaintiff’s claim is not permissible in accordance with the principle of invalidation as it goes against

In light of the 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 by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the waiver of exclusive right to use or the principle of invalidation in relation to unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Cho Jong-hee