The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant should return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, on each of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, since the Defendant, on each of the instant land, obtained benefits without any legal ground by installing an entrance and using it, and thereby, incurred loss to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of each of the instant land. As such, the lower court accepted the Defendant’s donation or use of each of the instant land without compensation, ① the Defendant’

(2) The Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from each of the instant land

(3) The Plaintiff did not accept all the allegation that the claim in this case is against the good faith principle or the good faith principle and that it should not be permitted in accordance with the principle of invalidation.

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 on the bench.