1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff acquired ownership of the amount of 355-15 square meters (hereinafter “land”) on August 22, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 475-5 square meters (hereinafter “land”) on November 28, 1988, 475-5 square meters (hereinafter “land”), 198 square meters on November 28, 198, 476-2, 198 square meters (hereinafter “land”), 477-2, 20 square meters (hereinafter “land”) on July 6, 1989, 477-2, 20 square meters (hereinafter “land”) on September 8, 1988.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent because the defendant occupies and uses each of the above lands as a road, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff renounced his exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from each of the above lands.

3. Determination

A. In 1989, the Plaintiff completed and sold each apartment unit on the ground of Yongsan-dong 473-3 in Yongsan-dong 1989 and on the ground of the same 4777 in 1990, and around that time, the Plaintiff provided the land without compensation to the residents of the above apartment complex and the residents of the neighboring area. 2) The Plaintiff sold the land of the 355-1 Do 355-1 Do 1,207 square meters in a housing site as a housing site at the port. 1) The land is divided from the above land and is used as a road connected to the land divided into the above land.

[Grounds for recognition] Eul 1-1 (including paper numbers), the result of on-site verification, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination 1) Unless there are other special circumstances, a road constructed and sold by a landowner at the time of building and selling a group of housing sites shall be deemed to have granted the right to pass through the road to all persons who parcel out the housing site, including the purchaser of the land, and thus the landowner may not exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the said land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da8802, Jun. 11, 2009). 2) Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff shall not exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from each of the above land.