1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. The appeal costs and the claims in the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 4, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land through a public auction procedure.

B. On June 10, 2009, the instant land was designated as the road at the time of the decision on the urban renewal acceleration district No. 1 of Yeongdeungpo-do (Seoul Metropolitan City Public Notice C).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant Busan Metropolitan City’s decision on the main defense of this case’s land management authority is not the above Defendant, but the Youngdo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, so the above Defendant’s claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the above Defendant in this case’s lawsuit is an unlawful lawsuit against a non-qualified person. However, in the performance lawsuit, Defendant Busan Metropolitan City’s defense against the above Defendant Busan Metropolitan City is not reasonable.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendants occupied and used the land of this case without any legal grounds, the plaintiff should return the benefits to the plaintiff, who is the landowner, as unjust enrichment.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the owner of the land in this case renounced the right to use and benefit from the land in this case or granted the right to free access for the general public, and the Plaintiff also acquired the ownership of the land in this case with the knowledge of such fact.

B. If the administrative authority of the head of a higher local government on the maintenance and management of a road to determine a claim against Defendant Busan Metropolitan City was delegated to the head of a lower local government under the Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority, even if the head of a lower local government delegated the authority, the head of a lower local government, who is delegated with the authority, becomes the road management authority, and the delegated authority loses its authority for administrative affairs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da61562, Apr. 23, 199). In this case,