1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff owned the land of this case from around 197 to April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant offered the instant land to the general public for traffic from around that time, and occupied the instant land by installing Manle or executing packing works, and sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 16, 2010 to April 15, 2015.

Judgment

According to the evidence No. 1, the plaintiff could recognize the fact that he owned the land of this case from around 1977, but only the statement No. 2, 3, and 4 stated that the defendant designated and managed the land of this case as a road pursuant to the Road Act, etc., and provided the general public with the passage of the general public by managing it as a road.

The plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the defendant occupied the land of this case is without merit, since it is not enough to recognize that he had installed a manle and a packing work on the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the defendant occupied the land of this case, the defendant set up a private road from the land owned by the plaintiff adjacent to the land of this case to the private road, and allowed the owner of the adjacent land to freely pass it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that he waived the right to exclusive use.

If the owner of a certain land provides the land as a road and grants the right to free access to neighboring residents or the general public, he/she shall be deemed to have given the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da52844, May 8, 1998). The owner of the land grants the right to free access to the land to neighboring residents or the general public by providing the land as a road, or is given the exclusive and exclusive right to use the land.