1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 10 and the entire purport of the pleadings:

The plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land listed in the annexed sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") with the Changwon District Court No. 2259 on January 9, 1965, which was received on January 9, 1965, on the ground of sale as of January 9, 1952.

B. The instant land was designated as part of the national highwayB route by Presidential Decree No. 5771 on August 31, 1971, and the land category was changed from November 25, 1971 to “the roads” and was used as part of national highwayB roads around that time.

C. There is still no entry that the Plaintiff is registered as the owner in the registry and cadastral record on the land of this case, and there is no objection to the use of the land of this case as the road until the Plaintiff files the lawsuit of this case to the Defendant.

When the land adjacent to the instant land was incorporated into the road, the Plaintiff received compensation and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 26, 1981.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant, around November 25, 1971, opened a national highwayB on the land of this case owned by the plaintiff and occupied it without title, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the rent and thereby causing damage to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant shall return to the plaintiff the profit equivalent to the above rent as unjust enrichment. Meanwhile, in a case where the state or local organization occupied the land not used as the previous road as a road into a road, the amount of unjust enrichment should be assessed according to the actual state of use as at the time of incorporation into the road (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da56232, Apr. 27, 199). The defendant used the land of this case as the answer.