The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The instant land was used as a road since 1985, and its land category was changed from “former” to “Road” on December 3, 1986.

On March 6, 191, the Plaintiff purchased each land of Jeju City D and E from Jeju City, and purchased each land of this case to use it as access roads. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on each land on March 9, 1991.

On June 27, 1994, Jeju-si, the Defendant, obtained ownership of each land through a compensation consultation procedure for H land (divisiond from D land), I land (divisiond from J land divided from D land), and K land (divisiond from E land) owned by the Plaintiff, adjacent to the instant land, in order to expand the National RoadF (former local local highway G).

As a result of the appraisal of rent for the instant land, the rent from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2018 was assessed in total as KRW 9,208,280, and the monthly rent after April 10, 2017 as KRW 267,724, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Gap's 7 through 9, Eul's 1 through 4 (including each number, if any), the result of the commission of the appraisal of rent to the Jeju Branch Co., Ltd. of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts as to the cause of claim, the Defendant, as a result of using the instant land, owned by the Plaintiff without any legal cause, obtained unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to the rent, and barring any special circumstance, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to the rent from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2018, calculated at the rate of KRW 9,208,280 and delay damages therefor, and KRW 267,724 per month from October 1, 2018 to the closing date of the road as to the instant land.

3. As to the defendant's defense of "the waiver of exclusive right to use"

A. The gist of the defendant's defense is that the defendant renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case, so the land of this case is a road.