1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 19, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased 66m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “C”) B, Suwon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “C”) and acquired ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer on January 20, 2009.

B. The land in this case is a road, and is used as a passage through D, E, etc., and the defendant currently maintains and manages the land in this case as a road.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, Gap evidence Nos. 1-8, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, the Defendant, without any legal ground, obtained benefits equivalent to the benefits from the use of the instant land by occupying and using the instant land as a road, while thereby incurring losses equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use to the Plaintiff.

B. (i) The Defendant’s assertion regarding the instant land is a road naturally occurring from the construction act around the instant land. Since the owner of the instant land renounced his exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit therefrom, the Defendant’s aforementioned possession and use of the instant land did not cause any loss to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Defendant did not return the unjust enrichment to the Defendant.

⑵ 관련 법리 ㈎ 어느 사유지가 종전부터 자연발생적으로 또는 도로예정지로 편입되어 사실상 일반 공중의 교통에 공용되는 도로로 사용되고 있는 경우, 그 토지의 소유자가 스스로 그 토지를 도로로 제공하여 인근 주민이나 일반 공중에게 무상으로 통행할 수 있는 권리를 부여하였거나 그 토지에 대한 독점적이고 배타적인 사용수익권을 포기한 것으로 의사해석을 함에 있어서는,...