1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Busan Metropolitan City

A. On June 29, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of “property inheritance due to consultation and division on February 17, 1985,” with respect to the land indicated in [Attachment 1] No. 284 square meters of Busan Gangseo-gu road B, the land indicated in [Attachment 1 (hereinafter “instant land 2”) and the land listed in [Attachment 1] indicated in [Attachment 1] (hereinafter “third land”).

B) Defendant Busan Metropolitan City is the land indicated in attached Table 1, which is part of the area of 284 square meters of the above Busan Gangseo-gu road B, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) According to the above facts, Defendant Busan Metropolitan City is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of land Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstance, to the Plaintiff, based on the following facts: (a) there is no dispute on the ground of recognition; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; (c) Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2, and 3; and (d) the records and images of Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2, and 3; and (b) the result of the survey and appraisal by the court of first instance as to the Korea Land Information Corporation; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to relevant statutes, such as the Road Act, etc., the main point of the argument of Defendant Busan Metropolitan City is as follows: (a) the main body of occupation of land Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in this case is the Gangseo-gu Office, not the Busan Metropolitan City.

B) If Defendant Busan Metropolitan City is the owner of possession, the acquisition by Defendant Busan Metropolitan City’s possession of the land Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the instant case was completed. C) The land Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the instant case was used as a road passing through the general public for a long time in an irregular form that has a low value. The Plaintiff’s owner did not assert any right such as a claim for compensation for several hundred and twenty years. Thus, the Plaintiff should be deemed to waive his exclusive right to use

2) The occupying entity.