1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased real estate indicated in the separate sheet from Nonparty B, the land category of which is a road (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 20, 2012, there is no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant gains a benefit while occupying and using the instant land as a road and thereby causes damage to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant land, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent of the said land (from September 15, 2012 to the completion date of delivery) to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

As to this, the defendant did not occupy the land of this case, and even if the defendant assumed that the land of this case is possessed by the defendant, the former owner of the land did not bear the obligation to return unjust enrichment since he renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit at the

3. Determination

(a) The form of occupation that the State or a local government occupies a road may be divided into occupation as a road management authority and occupation as a de facto controlling entity;

In fact, when a public announcement of the approval of routes and a road zone are determined under the Road Act or when a road zone is constructed by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, possession as a road management authority can be recognized from the beginning of the existing road. If the State or a local government performs the reconstruction or maintenance work of a road, such as expansion, packaging, or sewerage construction, and thus the State or a local government actually performs the reconstruction or maintenance work of a road for the existing road and is for public traffic, it shall be deemed that the existing road is actually controlled by the State or a local government,

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da58216, Jun. 29, 1995).

First, the Defendant is the road management authority.