1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Each land stated in the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “each land of this case”) is the Plaintiff’s ownership, and the Defendant used it as a road, and thus, sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

B. Determination 1) It is reasonable to view that the original owner of the land provided a part of the land to be a site without compensation and waiver of the exclusive and exclusive rights to use the land, and accordingly, a person who specifically succeeded the ownership of the land through auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc. after the residents passed the land without compensation and acquired the ownership of the land as to the part of the land provided as a road with knowledge of such circumstances or at least such fact. Therefore, even if a local government occupies and manages a part of the land as a road, it cannot be said that any damage has occurred to the specific successor, and the specific successor cannot file a claim for return of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da52844, May 8, 1998; 2010Da84703, May 26, 201; 2010Da121191, May 12, 2012; 201Da31619, supra, each of the instant land appraisal numbers and answers, etc.