부당이득금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. On November 2, 1983, the Plaintiff Association completed the registration of ownership transfer under the said Plaintiff’s name with respect to the land D in Suwon-si District. On December 15, 1994, among Plaintiff C, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to land D in the said Plaintiff’s name.
B. At the time of October 199, the GJ-si approved the housing construction project plan with respect to the application for the approval of the housing construction project plan as well as the J-si-si and 30 lots of land, and the project site was included in the project site of the above project plan. On October 18, 1999, the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”). The land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land No. 2”) was divided in E, respectively.
C. The land category Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case was the land category adjacent to the K road in the Young-si District owned by the Republic of Korea. However, the Songsan Construction Co., Ltd., which implemented a multi-family housing project, obtained a permit to divert farmland for the purpose of creating public facilities (road) from Jun. 18, 2002 and changed the land category on July 19, 2002 to the road.
The land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is currently used as part of the “N” road connecting L and M, which is the width of 8 to 10 meters located between the F apartment and G apartment in the Yongsan-si River area at present.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, 11 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition of the first claim for return of unjust enrichment, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, since around 2002, provided the land Nos. 1 and 2 to the present day for the passage of vehicles and for the passage of the public, occupied and managed the road. Thus, the Defendant made unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the land Nos. 1 and 2 to the Plaintiffs.