beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant occupies and uses the road of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff without any legal ground, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the rent of the road of this case from June 3, 201, which was five years before the filing date of the lawsuit of this case, to the completion date of the defendant's occupation concerning the road of this case or to the loss date of the plaintiff'
2. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 and Eul evidence Nos. 6, the plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on February 15, 1978 with respect to the land of 198.3 square meters (hereinafter "land prior to the division of this case") on the land before the division of this case on August 21, 198. The plaintiff divided the land before the division into the land of this case into the land of this case on Feb. 21, 1986 and B large 74.1 square meters, B large 74.1 square meters, and B large 74.1 square meters into the road of this case on Feb. 20, 1978, and the plaintiff divided the land of this case into the land of this case on Aug. 26, 198.
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff appears to have been in need of securing a site leading to a contribution in order to obtain a building permit on the ground of the instant land. After dividing the instant land into the instant land and the instant road, the Plaintiff applied for a land category change into the instant road, and granted the right to free access to the instant road to the general public while providing the instant road as a road site, or cannot exercise an exclusive and exclusive right to use the instant road.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review as to the remaining points, such as the amount of unjust enrichment.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.