1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On December 29, 199, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the share of 2813/338 out of B forest land No. 89 square meters in the Gu-si, Jung-si, 199.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). B. B. 89 square meters of land in Dong Government-si.

Of the instant land, the portion of 64 square meters in the ship connecting the attached Table 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 7, among the instant land (hereinafter “instant road”) is a asphalt package containing a drainage channel, and the Defendant occupied and used the instant road as a road.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-1 and 2-2, the result of the first instance court’s request for surveying and appraisal to appraiser C, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As long as there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant, who incurred the duty to return unjust enrichment, occupied and used the instant road portion through lawful procedures for compensation as stipulated in the relevant laws, the Defendant occupied and used the instant road portion, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the rent and causing damages equivalent to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent for the Plaintiff’s share out of the instant road portion.

As to this, the defendant asserted that the part of the road of this case was used as a road since before December 1993, and that the plaintiff acquired the share of the land of this case with knowledge that there was a restriction on use and profit-making, and thus the plaintiff renounced exclusive use and profit-making rights to the part of the road of this case. However, as alleged by the defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the previous owner of the land of this case provided the part of this case as a road of this case for a long time and granted the right to free use and profit-making rights to neighboring residents or general public, or that the previous owner of the land of this case or the plaintiff renounced exclusive use and profit-making rights to the part of the