The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court: (a) premised on the premise that each of the instant lands constitutes “public facilities” under Article 2 subparag. 13 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11922, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”) which is subject to gratuitous reversion as administrative property that is an administrative property that is an administrative property that passes between an unspecified number of people and a large number of people; and (b) determined that the Plaintiff’s expansion of the width of each of the instant lands, which the Plaintiff actually used as an existing road through the instant project, and construction of a new road replacing the existing road by means of expanding the asphalt package, and thus, the new road newly installed under Article 65(1) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act ought to be gratuitously reverted to the Defendant, which is the road management agency, and the existing road ought to gratuitously reverted to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above expropriation compensation to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and that the statutory interest rate from the day following the date the first instance judgment was rendered to the Plaintiff was liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum by applying Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion Act”).

Examining the Supreme Court Decision 2017Da237148 Decided September 12, 2017 in light of relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In conclusion, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “public facilities” under Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, allocation of burden of proof, and Article 3