1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. At the time of May 30, 1972, the Defendant changed the land category of the instant land to a road upon application for land category change filed by C, the owner of the land B, Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”). Since then, the instant land was used as the passage of neighboring land.

After that, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land on March 12, 2008.

B. On August 9, 2007, the land including the instant land was designated as a project zone for a housing redevelopment improvement project in the D District, and was subject to a disposition for authorization to establish the association on December 26, 2007 and a disposition for authorization to implement a project on May 30, 2008, and was ultimately expropriated on February 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 8, Gap evidence 4, the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion provided the whole land of this case owned by the plaintiff as a contribution, and if it is deemed that the plaintiff renounced the right to use and benefit from the land of this case, the land of this case does not have the core right to use and benefit from the land of this case, and only the right to use and benefit from the land of this case remains. The right to use and benefit under the Real Rights Act cannot

B. (1) It is reasonable to view that the original owner of the land has acquired the ownership of the land, at least by allowing or knowing such circumstances, the fact that the original owner of the land provided a portion of the land as a site for a free use and benefit therefrom, and that the resident has renounced the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit therefrom, and that a person who specifically succeeded to the ownership of the land through auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc. after the residents became passing through the land without compensation. Therefore, he/she cannot exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land

Therefore, it is true.