1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around October 1, 2008, the Plaintiff opened a asphalt package (hereinafter “the access road of this case”) which is linked to the Plaintiff’s D Training Institute (hereinafter “instant Training Institute”); (b) the Plaintiff’s narrow and old-undeveloped country’s agricultural roads connected to the said Training Institute’s schedule; and (c) the Plaintiff was required to cover KRW 40 million for the cost of opening the access road of this case.

However, since the Defendant, who is a parcel adjoining to the instant training institute, is enjoying free of charge the convenience of passage by using the access road to the instant case, the Plaintiff should return to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million equivalent to 1/2 of the cost of opening the access road to the instant case as unjust enrichment.

In addition, since the Plaintiff established the access road to the Defendant’s residence with the objective of establishing the access road to the instant case, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, who managed the Defendant’s business as above, as necessary or beneficial expenses pursuant to Article 739 of the Civil Act.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the performance under the contract on the determination of the claim for return of unjust enrichment benefits not only the other party to the contract but also the third party, the party who provided the performance shall be deemed not to be able to claim the return of unjust enrichment directly against the third party in addition to claiming the counter-performance under the contract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 99Da66564, 66571 Decided August 23, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da17106 Decided June 27, 2013, etc.). As to the instant case, the Plaintiff had opened a asphalt package by maintaining the “road owned by the State” in accordance with an agreement, permission, etc. with the State, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff maintained the “road owned by the State” in accordance with an agreement, permission, etc. with the State, and the Defendant obtained convenience to the place of residence.

This result in the act according to the agreement between the state and the plaintiff.