1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 1989, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B miscellaneous land B on July 31, 1989, and began to reclaim public waters adjacent to the said land.

B. On May 27, 2003, the Defendant newly pointed out and registered the land of 1,435 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the land filled up by the Plaintiff, which was filled up on May 27, 2003, and completed the registration of preservation of ownership on June 30, 2003.

On December 26, 2007, the Defendant completed the construction of road on the instant land.

C. On August 2012, the Defendant issued an order to reinstate the remainder of the reclaimed land except the instant land to the Plaintiff, and imposed indemnity upon the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff did not comply therewith.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant obtained benefits equivalent to the construction cost by nationalizing the reclaimed land created at the Plaintiff’s expense, and this constitutes the expenses that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant for the management of affairs for the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to reimburse the Plaintiff the expenses incurred for the reclamation of the instant land. 2) In relation to the Defendant’s assertion of extinctive prescription, inasmuch as the Plaintiff knew of the fact that the Defendant had to nationalize the instant land and completed the registration for the preservation of ownership around August 2012, it constitutes abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.

B. In order to establish the judgment management, it is required that, first of all, the office work is another person’s business and there is an intention to vest in another person the actual benefit of management, i.e., the actual benefit of management, and further, it is not clear that the process of such office work is disadvantageous to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da30882, Aug. 22, 2013): Provided, That where another person’s business is a State’s affairs, in principle, a private person is legally based on the legal basis.