1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 29th of November 10, 1975 with respect to the petitioner-gu Seoul road 91 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) on the ground of sale on November 10, 1975.

B. The petitioner group, when executing the “D Corporation” around 1990, incorporated the instant land into the said site for the construction, opened a road and occupied and managed it. The land category of the instant land was changed from the “river” to the “road” on August 27, 1990.

C. On July 1, 2014, the petition group is incorporated into the defendant, and the defendant occupies and manages the above road.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1-3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant occupied and managed the instant land owned by the Plaintiff as a road site, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the rent without any legal cause, and thereby giving the Plaintiff the same amount of damages.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant asserts that the land of this case was acquired through consultation in accordance with Article 6 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss (see Article 6 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss)

According to Article 6(1), where a project operator intends to hold a consultation for the acquisition or use of land, etc. for a public project, and it is impossible to hold such consultation due to the unknown address or domicile of the owner of the land, etc., the consultation by public notice may substitute for consultation by public notice as prescribed by Presidential Decree. According to Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act