The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the land in this case to the Plaintiff, the owner of the land in this case, and determined that the land was actually used as a road prior to the change of land category to “road”, and that even if the road was not constructed on the said land, it is reasonable to view that the land use status to calculate unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land in this case, as it is objectively apparent that the actual use of the land changed to the surrounding land

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of unjust enrichment, waiver of exclusive use right, the principle of good faith, or by incomplete deliberation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.