부당이득금
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. In addition to the rejection of the video of evidence No. 15, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as evidence submitted in addition to the following judgment and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case, the court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. The defendant asserts that if each of the lands of this case was incorporated into a road due to an urban planning project, the land of this case shall be reverted to the defendant without compensation pursuant to Article 83 (1) of the former Urban Planning Act, which was enforced at the time of the implementation of the
Even if each of the instant lands was incorporated into a road due to an urban planning project, Article 83(1) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191, Article 2 of the Addenda of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002) provides that public facilities newly installed by an executor who is an administrative agency shall gratuitously belong to the State or a local government which will manage such facilities through the implementation of an urban planning project. The above provision applies only to a case where a project executor, which is an administrative agency, acquires a land necessary for newly installed public facilities through the implementation of an urban planning project through a contract under the private law or the procedure under the public law, and installs public facilities and completes the project. It does not apply to a case where a project executor installs public facilities without lawful acquisition of the land necessary for public facilities and occupies and uses
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da103069, Mar. 15, 2012). The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
B. The Defendant shall submit the document submitted by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff on February 6, 2017.