1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on March 8, 2013, with respect to each of 1/2 shares of 22,913 square meters of C Forest land in Tae-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. Among the forest land of this case, there are roads on the land of this case, which is a total of 34 m24 m2, 324 m2, 15 m2, 5 m2, and 344 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,0

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 5, result of commission of appraisal to the chief of the office of the first instance court of the Korea Land Information Corporation, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, while occupying and using the dispute part, obtained a profit equivalent to the rent and suffered a loss equivalent to the rent from the plaintiffs who are its owners. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the dispute part to the plaintiffs.

3. It is reasonable to view that the original owner of the land determined as to Defendant defense provided a part of the land as a site for a road without compensation and waiver of the exclusive and exclusive rights to use the land, and that a person who specifically succeeded the ownership of the land through auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc. after the residents passed the land without compensation and subsequently acquired the ownership of the land, even though he/she knew of the burden of restricting such use and profit, barring any special circumstance, or at least acquired the ownership of the land. Therefore, the original owner cannot exercise the exclusive and exclusive rights to use and profit-making

Therefore, even if a local government occupies and manages part of the land as a road, it cannot be claimed for restitution of unjust enrichment against the local government.

Supreme Court on July 12, 2012