손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
A. The Plaintiff’s developments leading to the acquisition of ownership of the instant road and the current status of the instant road 1) “D. 52.9 square meters” (hereinafter “instant road”).
(2) From May 5, 1962, the ownership of G was transferred to AB system on May 13, 2009 due to sale and purchase on May 12, 2009, and thereafter, the ownership was transferred to H and Heung Industries Development Co., Ltd. in sequence. Around June 24, 2014, the ownership was transferred to the Plaintiff through compulsory sale by official auction on the ground of compulsory sale on the part of the Plaintiff on June 24, 2014. (2) F City extended the instant road to the center in front of I Station around February 1978, and paid KRW 11,520,000 as land compensation to G who was the owner of the instant road at that time.
Since F City, the road of this case has been provided for the general public for possession and use.
3) The value of the road of this case assessed in the course of compulsory auction for real estate E in the Jeonju District Court, Gunsan Branch E, is KRW 37,030,00. (b) The Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the purport that “F City fully pays the purchase price of the road of this case to G, but failed to obtain the registration of ownership transfer from G,” and later, since the ownership of the road of this case was transferred to a third party and the ownership of the road of this case was transferred to G, the obligation to register ownership transfer to F City was impossible, and thus, the obligation to cancel the sales contract with G and recover the purchase price already paid as unjust enrichment.” However, the pertinent claim for return of unjust enrichment from F City of December 18, 2014 was subject to the ten-year extinctive prescription, and 30 years have passed since the purchase, and thus the extinctive prescription cannot be exercised.
The Plaintiff, the present owner of the road of this case, has occupied the road of this case in peace and public performance for at least 30 years.