1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land on September 24, 2010.

Plaintiff

All the owners of the instant land, which acquired ownership due to sale and purchase, are as follows.

On September 14, 1975, Feb. 4, 1986, the date of registration, the owner DES FH I J on Nov. 24, 2008, the owner on Nov. 24, 2008, the date of November 27, 1996, May 27, 1996 (registration of inheritance)

B. On the other hand, the part of the instant road among the instant land is provided to the general public for traffic and passage since the beginning of the 1970s, and the Defendant from around 2004, installed and occupied a asphalt package on the instant road and a water supply pipe on the underground.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 13, the statements or images of witness M, the testimony of the first instance court, the result of the commission of surveying and appraisal to the net branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation in the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) without any title, packages of a container and the installation and possession of waterworks on the instant road; (b) the Defendant removed the container and the waterworks and delivered the instant road to the Plaintiff; and (c) the Plaintiff should return the unjust enrichment of KRW 2,351,880 (the rent corresponding to the rent from January 28, 2012 to January 27, 2018) as a result of the use of the instant road.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that ① since the former owner of the instant land renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant road, the Plaintiff, a specific successor, cannot exercise the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant road, ② the removal of the instant road constitutes an abuse of rights even if the said renunciation is not recognized.

B. Where the owner of the land owns the land for general public, such as a road and a site laid underground for the water supply facility, the details, period, and owner of the land.