1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The land originally included in the area of 181 square meters of B road in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant road”) is originally divided into the said C road of 397 square meters, and the Defendant was divided into the urban planning line on June 17, 2005, and the Plaintiff was subject to the public sale on April 19, 2005.

5.12. He shall complete the registration of ownership transfer.

B. The instant land has been already incorporated into a road for urban planning facilities (a Class I residential area) in around 2003, prior to the subdivision, and has been actually used for general public’s traffic.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence No. 1, the result of this court's request for measurement and appraisal of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the party’s assertion argues that the Plaintiff sought restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent because the Defendant without any title includes the instant land owned by the Plaintiff into the road for urban planning facilities, and the Defendant asserted that the instant land was a land, for which the original owner at the time obtained a building permit, waived the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, such as dividing the land for access roads and making donation, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant land while knowing or permitting the said circumstances. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek restitution of unjust enrichment.

B. It is reasonable to view that the original owner of land 1 has acquired the ownership of the land by denying the exclusive and exclusive right to use the land by providing part of the land to the site of the road without compensation, and that the person who specifically succeeded the ownership of the land through an auction after the residents have passed the land without compensation, was aware of the burden of restricting such use or profit-making. Therefore, the exclusive and exclusive right to use and profit-making of the land provided as a road may be exercised as to the part of the land.