1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

The reasons why the court should explain concerning this case are the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the judgment of the defendant on the following defendant's argument, and therefore it is citing it as is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion on the waiver of the right to use the land of this case has long been using the land of this case as a passage by the general public. Accordingly, the plaintiff voluntarily packaging the land of this case as a road and allowing the general public to pass it free of charge, and thus, the claim for extradition is not possible. Further, even if the defendant occupied and managed the land of this case by way of repackaging, repairing and repairing the above road for the purpose of the above passage, the right to claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is not established.

The key land of this case was originally used for public passage from its original date, and the Plaintiff voluntarily provided the key land to the general public as a road.

No evidence exists to acknowledge that the Defendant consented or consented to the possession and management of a road, and rather, it is recognized that the land category was changed from the entire land to the orchard.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land at issue, and on the other hand, the Defendant arbitrarily occupied the land at issue, resulting in the loss of the amount equivalent to the rent.

As such, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant determined the abuse of rights as to the instant land of this case, which was used by the public for a long period of time.