1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for judgment of this court shall be the same as the judgment of the first instance; and

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, “injury” in the 11st sentence of the first instance judgment shall be read as “free,” and “I” in the 4th sentence shall be read as “K”.

2.In addition, the following shall be added to the "not possible" that will be the fifth eightth of the judgment of the first instance:

The plaintiff asserts that the State or local government specified and expanded the land to be used as a road by urban planning, and then divided the land B in the process of providing it for the passage of the general public, and that the land category of this case changed to a road

However, the Plaintiff also acknowledges that the instant land was adjacent to L which was used as a road from the Joseon Dynasty, and according to the Eul 2, 6, and 8, the instant land appears to have been used as a national highway since 1934, and accordingly, it can be acknowledged that the instant land was already used as a national highway, and that it is the fact that it was already indicated as the current status at the time of the application for land category change by the cadastral engineer report prepared by B.

If this circumstance is the situation, the land of this case was used as a road by the state or local government.

It is right to view that it was naturally used as a road by being included in L used from the Joseon Dynasty.

Furthermore, the land of this case was used by the state or local government as a road around 1934.

Even if it was used as a road for a considerable period thereafter, there is no reason to deem that the owner of the instant land has exercised the claim for return of unjust enrichment during that period, and considering the fact that the Plaintiff acquired ownership after being aware that the instant land was being used as a road around October 21, 2013, it seems that the Plaintiff seeking return of unjust enrichment would violate the principle of good faith.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3...