beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows, given that the reasoning for this court’s decision is identical to the ground for the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420
[Additional Part] Even in a case where a land owner’s ownership is deemed not to have been granted exclusive, exclusive, or beneficial rights because the land use status corresponding to his/her own intent is formed by providing the land for free through the general public’s passage, allowing access to it, etc., this is merely a case where a landowner cannot claim a return of unjust enrichment because he/she cannot claim a return of unjust enrichment because he/she cannot claim a loss due to non-exclusive occupancy or use because he/she maintains the existing use status in light of the principle of good faith, such as gold, protection of trust, etc.
Therefore, in cases where objective circumstances, which form the basis for excluding exclusive rights to use and benefit, have been significantly changed due to significant changes in land use conditions, the landowner should be deemed to be able to make a full proposal of rights based on ownership, including the right to use and benefit, from the time of such changes in circumstances.
At this time, whether there is any change in circumstances should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances before and after, such as the location and physical nature of the land in question, motive and background of the land owner to provide the land to the public for the passage of the general public, relationship with the land in question, circumstances leading to the change in land use status and the identity of the previous use status
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da54133 Decided August 22, 2013). In light of this, the instant land owner prior to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, is the instant land owner.