1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land was sold during the compulsory auction procedure and became its owner.

Until now, the defendant has occupied the land of this case as D's road site without any legal cause.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 639,430, and delay damages for the land already incurred from April 15, 2016 to June 11, 2018. Furthermore, the Defendant is obligated to pay rent calculated at the rate of KRW 31,200 per month from June 12, 2018 to the date on which the Defendant occupies the instant land or the date on which the Plaintiff loses its ownership.

B. The plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case, which was acquired through a compulsory auction by the original owner of the defendant's assertion, is without merit.

2. The original owner of the land in question provides the land without compensation to the original owner of the land so that he/she renounces his/her exclusive and exclusive right to use the land, and the resident can not exercise his/her exclusive and exclusive right to use the land by auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc. after he/she passes the land without compensation. Thus, even if a local government occupies and manages the land as a road, no damage may be caused to the specific successor, and a specific successor cannot make a claim for return of unjust enrichment, since a local government does not have any profit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da36852, Nov. 29, 1996; 2012Da26411, Jul. 12, 2012). Meanwhile, where a private land is used as a road for public use in the traffic of the general public, the owner of the land directly provides the land as a road and without compensation to neighboring residents or the general public.