부당이득금 반환
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) at the time of Tong Young-si.
1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1, except for the alteration and addition of some of the following changes:
Reasons of the judgment of the first instance court No. 1. A.
(2) by modifying subsection (2) as follows:
(2) On October 30, 1937, the land of this case was divided into 145 square meters prior to N, 403 square meters prior to J, and 334 square meters prior toO.
Before J, the land category was changed to “road” on the same day.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) J-road 403 square meters. B.
On February 8, 1994, the land category was changed to that of "the previous 195 square meters" in the fourth 15th part of the judgment of the court of first instance.
(c) to change the 3rd sentence of the first instance court’s ruling “1937 around October 30, 1937” on the 5th sentence.
2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim
A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant, as the road management authority established and occupied the instant land owned by the Plaintiffs as a road according to the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, etc., thereby gaining profit equivalent to the rent, and thereby causing considerable damages to the Plaintiffs, and thus, seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the instant land to the Defendant.
The Defendant, as the deceased or their inheritors, provided the land of this case to the general public for free by themselves and given up the right to use and benefit from the land of this case, or renounced the right to use and benefit from the land of this case. Even if the Defendant did not possess it, the Defendant acquired by prescription the land of this case by occupying it in a peaceful and public performance for twenty years from October 30, 1937 as the owner’s intent on
Upon a counterclaim, the plaintiffs seek implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case.
B. According to the above facts of recognition as to the part of the cause of the principal claim, the defendant has the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs under the Urban Planning Act.