부당이득금
1. Of the monetary payment in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.
1. The reasons for this court's explanation are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal under Paragraph 2 above and the additional determination under Paragraph 3 below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2.The fourth 7th 19th 7th 7th 19th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 19
“A) The basic value of land for calculating unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land occupied and used by the State or a local government as a road, shall be appraised according to the current status, which is limited to a road, in cases where the State or a local government has previously established a road under the Road Act, etc. for the land in which the State or a local government actually used for the traffic of the general public and has occupied as a road or has fulfilled the construction of a road as a road and has actually been in possession of a road as a de facto controller
(B) The road of this case, which existed on February 1, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da64372, Feb. 1, 2008) is used as a de facto road that had been used by the Defendant on which the general public passes, as seen earlier. As such, the amount of unjust enrichment that the Defendant has to return to the Plaintiff ought to be calculated on the basis of “road”, which is the current status of use. According to the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal with the appraiser G, the sum of the rent of the road of this case from May 20, 2012 to July 31, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 303,048, Apr. 4, 200, 400, 400, 400, 400 x 408, 2005, 207, 2045, 2384, 2546