beta
(영문) 대법원 2016.04.12 2015다218723

부당이득반환

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the public facilities under Article 25(1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act are the State Property Act, the public property under the Public Property and Commodity Management Act.

In addition, the issue of whether a person who has obtained approval of the implementation plan for the housing site development project is the existing public facilities to be gratuitously reverted to the person who has obtained approval of the implementation plan for the housing site development project shall be determined at the time of approval of the implementation plan for the housing site development project, but even if the actual use situation of the existing public facilities at the time of approval differs from the category in the public land register, if the management agency fails to abolish the existing public facilities and manages the existing public facilities as property

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59863 Decided May 28, 2004). In addition, according to the relevant statutes at the time of the land survey project at the time of the Japanese occupation occupation, the land category was examined as a road, but the lot number was not set at the time of the land survey project, and the land which was registered or not registered on the land cadastre was used as a road according to the current state at the time when the land survey was conducted, shall be deemed as a state-owned public property that was used as a road according to the current state at the time. The state-owned property in the Japanese occupation before August 9, 1945 was naturally owned by the government of the Republic of Korea at the time of the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea and the state-owned title (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da58957, Nov. 25, 2010). Meanwhile, the expression of intent to abolish the public use is possible by implied means, but is not provided for its original purpose.