1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

According to each entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 20, 1975 with respect to one half of the 270.2 square meters (the entire real estate indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table; hereinafter "the land of this case") of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C-ro, on December 19, 1975. The plaintiff completed the registration of transfer on April 14, 1994 with respect to the above shares of Eul on March 24, 2014; Eul completed the registration of transfer by testamentary gift on September 19, 195; Eul completed the registration of transfer of ownership on September 19, 195 with respect to D390 square meters (the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table; hereinafter "D land of this case") on August 10, 1954; and the plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case on May 29, 2009.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Defendant Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Defendant Gangnam-gu”) provided that the Plaintiff owned the instant land owned by 1/2 of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Defendant Yongsan-gu”) occupied and managed the instant land owned by the Plaintiff as a road and provided the instant land as a passage of neighboring residents, thereby gaining unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of each of the instant land without any legal grounds and causing damages equivalent to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment already incurred and unjust enrichment that may be incurred by the date of termination of occupation in the future to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendants Gangnam-gu did not occupy the land of this case owned by the plaintiff, and even if possession is recognized, the plaintiff already succeeded to the land of this case from B who has waived exclusive use and profit right, and thus, the plaintiff cannot seek the return of unjust enrichment on the ground of possession and management.

The defendant Yongsan-gu has renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case by dividing the land of this case into the road.