1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 22, 1969, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”) and reached the present point.

B. Although the land category of each of the instant lands was “B” at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership, on July 24, 1974, the land category on the land cadastre was changed to “road” (hereinafter “instant land category change”), and remains at present.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1-1, 2-1, 4-1, 2-2

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant commenced possession of each of the instant land as a road management authority from July 24, 1974, and from June 2006, possession as a de facto controller began to take place and gain profit equivalent to the rent while occupying and using each of the instant land as a road until now, and the plaintiff as the owner of each of the above land sustained loss to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the above rent amount as unjust enrichment to the plaintiff. As to this, the defendant asserted that he was liable to pay the above rent amount as unjust enrichment to the plaintiff. Since he did not possess each of the above land as a road management authority or as a de facto controller, he did not accept the plaintiff's claim.

3. The defendant's possession and use of each of the lands of this case is the requirement of the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment. Thus, the plaintiff has the burden of proof as to such possession.

First, we examine whether the Defendant occupies each of the instant land as a road management authority from April 1, 2009.

In a case where the State or a local government has made a public announcement of the approval of routes, or determination of road zones with respect to the existing de facto roads under the Road Act, or that a road has been constructed by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da58216, Jun. 29, 1995; 2007Da8914, Feb. 1, 2008).