The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the instant case, where a landowner provided the land owned to the general public for the purpose of public, such as road and site for water supply facilities, the following factors are comprehensively considered: (a) the details and period of holding the land owned by the owner; (b) the details and scale of the land used by the owner; (c) the existence of the owner’s interests or benefits from the provision of the land; (d) the location and form of the relevant part of the land; (e) the relationship with the neighboring land; and (e) the comparison and balancing between the ownership guarantee of the landowner and the interests of the general public. As a result, if the owner is deemed to have waived the exclusive and exclusive right to use the

Even if there are no special circumstances, the landowner cannot be deemed to have suffered any loss due to the land owner’s failure to file a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the land owner.

Such a legal principle is equally applied to the general successor of the land, and it is reasonable to deem that a specific successor has acquired the ownership of the land by allowing or knowing such circumstances that the specific successor bears the burden of restricting the use of and benefit from the land, barring any special circumstances, and thus, he/she cannot exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da264556 Decided January 24, 2019). The lower court rejected the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above shares, on the grounds that (a) B donated real estate Nos. 3 and 4 of this case to the Defendant, and renounced its exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit, and (b) the Plaintiff, who purchased five-seven shares inherited to C and D, cannot exercise its exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the said shares.

In light of records.