1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the following judgments with respect to selective claims newly asserted or added by the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. As to the Plaintiff’s new assertion, the Plaintiff renounced the Plaintiff’s right to use and benefit from the instant land.

Even if the land in this case was incorporated into a road site of "U" expanded to 35m wide, 4,00m wide, 4,00m wide, around 1989, and the objective situation, which form a basis for excluding the right to use and benefit, has changed, the Plaintiff, the owner of the land in this case, can make a full claim for the right to use and benefit, including the right to benefit from use, and thus, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent

Before the 1935 March 6, 1935, the land category was changed to a road, and used as a road along with F land from around that time, it cannot be deemed that the objective circumstance, which form the basis for excluding the exclusive use and profit-making right of the instant land, has been significantly changed, inasmuch as the land category was used as a road along with F land, such as the record of the recognition of the judgment of the first instance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, without any title, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money equivalent to the royalty due to tort damages, since the Plaintiff illegally occupied the instant land by incorporating the instant land into “U” after approving the Defendant’s implementation plan for the urban planning project (road) as of February 1, 1989 against the Japanese land of this case without any title.

The previous owner of the land of this case, such as the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance, D.