1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The basic facts were divided into Category C 3,172 in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 19, 1918 into Category D 1,131 and Category B 2,041. On July 10, 193, Category B 2,041 was divided into Category B 5 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and Category E 196 square meters in 1,840 square meters in size.

The land category of this case was changed from August 4, 1959 to the site.

The plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 16, 2006 on the land of this case on December 13, 2005.

At present, the instant land is currently used as a asphalt road with a 142 square meters in Seoul, G road, 45 square meters in G road, 66 square meters in H road, 102 square meters in J road, and 251 square meters in J road, and is used as a part of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government K, and is used as a asphalt road with a manle.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 16, 18 to 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the facts based on which the obligation to return unjust enrichment was established, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, by practically occupying and using the instant land owned by the Plaintiff as a road site, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the rent and causing losses to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the benefit to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant asserted that, in light of the process of partition of the land in this case, the former owner of the land in this case renounced his right to use and benefit from the land in this case, the current status of its use, the circumstances surrounding the local tax reduction and exemption, etc., and that the Plaintiff also purchased the land in this case with the knowledge of such fact, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the owner of the land in this case renounced his right to use and benefit from the land in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Return of unjust gains.

(a)the Parties;