1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Republic of Korea completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B river No. 922 square meters (hereinafter “one land before subdivision”) in Gyeong-dong, Dong-dong, Gyeong-do on the grounds of sale on September 14, 1935. The Republic of Korea completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to C river No. 752 square meters (hereinafter “second land before subdivision”) on the grounds of sale and purchase on September 10, 1935.

B. On January 11, 2017, the land No. 1 before subdivision was divided into the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table and D river 644 square meters, and the land of No. 2 before subdivision was divided into the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table on the same day and the land of No. 282 square meters before subdivision.

C. On June 14, 2017, F Co., Ltd. completed each registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the attached Table Nos. 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) and the aforementioned D river Nos. 644 and E river No. 282 square meters. The Plaintiff completed each registration of ownership transfer with respect to each land of this case on November 2, 2017.

The above D river 644 square meters and E river 282 square meters were included in the housing construction site executed by the F Co., Ltd., and the cancellation was registered on August 10, 2017 due to the implementation of the land development project, and accordingly the relevant registration record was closed.

The defendant is in the position of the road management authority that manages the City/Do road name of 'G', 'H', 'I', 35 meters wide, 3,680 meters long (hereinafter "the road of this case"), and the road of this case is passing through each land of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 (which include each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant obtained profits equivalent to the rent by occupying, using, and making profits from each of the lands of this case without any legal grounds, and thereby, incurred losses equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the occupation and use of each land of this case.

3. The defendant.