1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the purport of the whole pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6.

With respect to the 10/104 shares out of 770 square meters in Taean-gun E Miscellaneous land (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff acquired each ownership on March 10, 200, and on October 28, 2004, and sold it on July 10, 2018.

B. Meanwhile, around March 1973, the Defendant constructed a road on the instant land owned by F, and F died on January 14, 1982.

C. The plaintiff and the designated person filed a lawsuit against the defendant claiming unjust enrichment from the use of the land of this case (Seoul District Court Decision 2008Gadan5808) but the judgment became final and conclusive on December 5, 2008, on the ground that "F consented to the defendant to use the land of this case free of charge, and thereafter, the plaintiff and the designated person who acquired the land of this case knew of or allowed restrictions on the use and profit of the land of this case at the time of its acquisition, and that there is no causation between the plaintiff and the designated person's loss of the right to purchase the land of this case and the defendant's interest."

However, the above judgment No. 3 is dismissed.

Around 200, the plaintiff and the non-party asserted that "the plaintiff and the non-party shall return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the share in the land of this case because the defendant occupied or used the land of this case without permission," and filed a lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment against the defendant (Seoul District Court Decision 2000Na2616). However, on October 27, 2000, the plaintiff and the non-party appealed against the above court, which was sentenced to a judgment against the above court, but the court of appeal ( Daejeon District Court Decision 200Na13434) approved the deceased F to use the land of this case for free use by the former owner of the land of this case. The plaintiff and the non-party are limited to the use and profit of the share in the land of this case in acquiring the share in this case.