1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the court’s judgment is stated in this court’s decision as to the pertinent part (determination of unjust enrichment claim) as stipulated in paragraph (2). Thus, the court’s explanation is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the claim for unjust enrichment

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff agreed that F had the right to manage the instant pipelines and that F would not raise any objection even if the Plaintiff added the pipes to the instant pipelines or supplied urban gas by quarterlying the existing pipelines. As such, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have granted F the right to dispose of or remove the instant pipelines irrespective of the Plaintiff’s intent, and the owner of the instant pipelines still is the Plaintiff. However, it is reasonable to deem that F would not raise any objection as to the use of or profit from the instant pipelines by means of supplying urban gas through additional connection or quarter of the pipelines, and that F granted F the right to use and profit from the instant pipelines through the said method.

B. In order to recognize the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, the Defendants used the instant pipelines owned by the Plaintiff without any legal ground and thereby caused damage to the Plaintiff. Since the Defendants used the instant pipelines according to an agreement between F and the beneficial owner of the instant pipelines, they are not deemed to have used the instant pipelines without any legal ground, and as long as the Plaintiff granted F with the right to use and benefit from the instant pipelines.