1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Daegu Dong-gu Do-gu 200.7 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land” and “Plaintiff-owned building”). Defendant B is the owner of 451.2 square meters in size, and Defendant C is the owner of f.155 square meters in size.

B. A building owned by the Plaintiff was newly constructed by the former owner on October 5, 1994 with a building permit granted on and around October 5, 1994. In order to ensure that the width of roads adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land is narrow, the building boundary was set back from the boundary of the land to secure 6 meters in width under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.

C. Accordingly, among the land owned by the Plaintiff, part of the boundary line of the Plaintiff-owned building, that is, the east part adjacent to the G road in Daegu-gu and the north side part adjacent to the H road (attached Form 1, hereinafter “instant land part”) is used as the passage along with the above roads.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and its determination are based on the defendants' use of and benefit from the part of the land of this case, which is the plaintiff's own land without any title. Thus, the defendants are obligated to return the amount equivalent to the land use fee of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

As seen earlier, the part of the instant land is used as a passage along the adjacent road. However, in light of the developments leading up to the building permit of the Plaintiff-owned building and the shape of the instant land and the adjacent land, the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants obtained profit without any legal cause and caused damage to the Plaintiff by exclusively using and earning profit from the instant part of the land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.