1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the sale on September 22, 1990 with respect to the 197 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do on October 20, 1990, and on the ground of the sale on September 22, 1990 with respect to the 243 square meters in relation to the land prior to D on June 29, 2005 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”). Defendant B is the owner who completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the E-ga 984 square meters adjacent to each of the instant lands on October 21, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s land”).

B. Of each of the instant lands, the part of “A” connected in sequence 1 to 17, and 136 square meters (hereinafter “the instant road”) among each of the instant lands are stored in cement packaging in the direct line, which is located in a way, and used as a road.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-6, Eul evidence 1-B, Eul evidence 1 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the land owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendants use and benefit from the instant road without any title. As such, the Defendants are obligated to remove cement concrete on the ground of the instant road and deliver the instant road to the Plaintiff. From April 1, 2001, the concrete packing work completed, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to return unjust enrichment on the rent for the use of the instant road.

B. The gist of Defendant B’s assertion is that the Plaintiff renounced exclusive and exclusive rights to use the instant road, and Defendant B did not perform cement packaging work on the instant road. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

C. The main point of the argument by the Defendant Hyeong-gun renounced the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant road, and the Plaintiff’s wife F was at the time when the Plaintiff’s wife F was constructing the Gyeonggi-si’s ground C Housing.