1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff entered into a contract from C on May 14, 2008 to purchase 754 square meters (in cases where land is specified, it shall be indicated only with E if it is indicated as a specific land) prior to D, Kimhae-si on May 15, 2008 and divided 401 square meters out of the above land into B on May 15, 2008, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 19, 2008 with respect to 401 square meters prior to B (hereinafter “the instant land”) and 353 square meters prior to D, respectively.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff without any title occupied and managed the land B as a road and obtained unjust enrichment.

B. The Plaintiff may not seek a return of unjust enrichment from the Defendant, since it is deemed that the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the State or a local government grants the right of free traffic to the general public by providing the land as a road to the state or a local government, which opened, occupied, or managed the land as above, in a case where the land in question is offered for the general traffic, regardless of the legal procedures, such as the Road Act or the Urban Planning Act, on the private land where the State or the local government was actually used or not used for the general public, the State or the local government, who opened, occupied, or managed it as a road, may not claim a return of unjust enrichment on the ground of an unlawful possession.

The land owner has renounced the right to use and benefit if any private land is naturally occurring or is classified as a road site and is actually used as a general traffic route.

If it is interpreted that a consent to use as a road has been obtained, the time when the land was purchased; or