1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amounts.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment due to the Defendant’s possession of a 150 square meters and B 251 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Road A, and the first instance court accepted the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the possession of the same A road among them, and dismissed the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the possession of the B road.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, this Court's judgment is limited to the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment due to possession of 150 square meters of Seoul Mapo-gu Road A.

2. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding "a part of the urban planning road, including the road in this case, was designated as an urban planning facility (road) before May 7, 1975," and "a part of the city planning road, including the road in this case, including the road in this case, was discovered to pass through the site of a H school as a result of the actual survey of the present situation, and was changed to No. 1975-63 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice No. 1975-63 of the above date)" to "the mother land in this case" in Paragraph 1

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the existence of the obligation to return unjust enrichment. According to the above facts, the defendant, as a road management authority, occupied and used the road of this case 1, obtains profit equivalent to the profit from the use and thereby causes damage equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff as the owner. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) The defendant's defense against the defendant is first determined as to the waiver of the exclusive right to use, first of all, the plaintiff given the original owner of the road of this case to give the above land free of charge to the road site, thereby giving the plaintiff a waiver of the exclusive right to use and benefit therefrom, and thereafter, the residents passed the land free of charge.