부당이득반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s ownership on September 18, 200 is 62 square meters of land B with the wife population B (hereinafter “instant land”) adjacent to the road C when he/she acquired ownership on September 18, 200.
B. From 1997, part of the instant land was used as a road provided for public passage along with the said C road.
(C) The current status of compensation-related documents drawn up around July 1997 is written as "road" (hereinafter referred to as "road").
The Defendant, while carrying out D Construction around July 197, completed construction work on a ship (hereinafter “instant road”) which connects each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 6, and 1 among the instant land, and occupied and used it as a managing body from that time to that time.
On the other hand, the defendant is the defendant.
Around July 1997, in the case of the instant land incorporated into the road while conducting road works, the compensation for losses was completed to E, the former owner of the instant land.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant occupied and used the instant road without permission, and thus, the Defendant’s benefit derived therefrom shall be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. Since the Defendant cannot be deemed to have used the instant road for the general public’s traffic at the time of its initial transfer, the amount of unjust enrichment should be calculated on the basis of “forest” as its land category.
B. According to the court below's determination 1 of this case's obligation of return of unjust enrichment, the defendant obtained profit equivalent to the use profit by occupying and using the part of the road of this case, and thereby suffered loss equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiff who is the owner. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the occupation and use of the road of this case to the plaintiff.
As to this, the defendant shall have the land of this case passed by the general public.