The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a landowner provides the land owned for public use, such as a road and a site laid underground, the following circumstances are comprehensively considered: (a) the owner of the land; (b) the details and period of holding the land; (c) the details and scale of the owner’s provision of the land for public use; (d) the interest or convenience of the owner of the land; (c) the location or form of the relevant part; (d) the relationship with the neighboring land; and (e) the comparison and balancing between the ownership guarantee of the landowner and the public interest, if the owner may be deemed to have waived his/her exclusive exclusive right to use and benefit from the said land; and (e) the State and local governments may also possess and use the said land.

Even if there are no special circumstances, the land owner cannot be deemed to have suffered any loss due to the land owner’s failure to file a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the land owner.

(2) On January 24, 2019, the lower court is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant roads 1 and 2 in full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning. As such, the Defendant occupied and used the instant roads 1 and 2.

Even if the Plaintiff did not have any damage, it was determined to the effect that no damage would occur to the Plaintiff.

Examining the above legal principles in light of the above, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the limitation on the exercise of exclusive right to use by landowners, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. 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 on the bench.