The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Case summary and key issue

A. The Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the use of the part of the instant land against the Defendant, who is the managing entity of the excellent pipes buried on the instant land (hereinafter “instant excellent pipes”), as the owner of the 1,587 square meters wide prior to the wife population G (hereinafter “instant land”).

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that B (the Plaintiff’s father, hereinafter “the network”) owned the part of the instant land laid underground by the superior officer (hereinafter “the part of the instant land”) had renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land at the time when the said part was laid underground.

B. The first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the lower court accepted the Defendant’s assertion and renounced the Plaintiff’s exclusive and exclusive right to use the land in the instant dispute at the time the deceased was laid open, and determined that the Plaintiff, the inheritor, inherited such restricted land, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for the removal of superior pipes and the return of unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff asserted that the superior officer of the instant case constitutes “public sewage treatment plant” under the Sewerage Act, and thus, the expropriation of the instant land and the compensation for losses should be made in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law, and the Supreme Court precedents regarding the waiver of exclusive rights to use should not be applied, and the circumstances of the lower court alone are not sufficient to deem that the waiver of exclusive rights to use and benefit

C. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff can reject the Plaintiff’s request for the removal of superior pipes and the return of unjust enrichment by applying the existing Supreme Court precedents on the waiver of exclusive use rights.

To decide on the issue, the Supreme Court's precedent on this issue is first established.