[보상금청구사건][고집1978민,367]
Cases concerning the timing for occupying road sites by administrative agencies;
The starting date of March 15, 1977, and the completion of the construction work on September 20, 1977, the starting date of the construction work on the road extension by the defendant market to occupy the road site is from March 15, 1977.
Article 192 of the Civil Act
Kim Jong-tae
Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul Central District Court (77Gahap1217) in the first instance trial
From December 3, 1977 to full payment, the part against the defendant ordering the plaintiff to pay 636,230 won to the plaintiff and the amount equivalent to 5 percent per annum from December 3, 1977. This part of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be ten minutes for the first and second trials, and the nine costs for the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,066,230 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the service of the application for correction of claim as of December 1, 197 to the day of full payment.
The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a provisional execution declaration are declared.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second trials.
1. When the defendant started the road expansion construction work on March 15, 197, it was divided into 33, 246, 494-33, 494-33, 53, and 54, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67, Apr. 6, 197) and 49-9, 149, 340, 100, 346, 149 (hereinafter referred to as the "the land of this case"), with the exception of the notification of land compensation consultation for the purchase, it was incorporated into the land of the above access road without due process under the Land Expropriation Act, and completed the road expansion construction work on September 20, 197; the fact that the land was occupied as the road is no dispute between the parties; and (f) the verification and execution of the land as a result of the appraisal of the land of this case is recognized under subparagraph (a) of the attached Table 1).
Therefore, in this case where there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendant has the right to occupy the land, the Defendant shall be liable to compensate for the damages equivalent to the fee for the Defendant’s main case. According to the result of the appraisal of the fee for the lease of the appraiser of the original case from March 15, 1977 to August 197, the rent with no deposit for the land of this case shall be 5 +68,540 won per month for three months from September 1, 197 to November 1, 197, 86,420 won per month for three months from September 1, 197 to November 1, 197 (p 5.80 won per day), and thus, the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s possession of the land of this case shall be 86,420 won per month from March 15, 197 to November 30, 197 to 197 + 3608,36500 won and 2636450.5 won (p.265).36
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 636,230 won per annum from December 1, 1977 to the date of delivery of the plaintiff's application for correction of claim as of December 1, 1977, with the amount equivalent to 5% per annum per civil law from December 3, 1977 to the date of full payment.
2. Next, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant cannot receive the land of this case after completion of September 20, 197 as the road site. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought compensation for the amount equivalent to the market price since this case's land ownership was lost, but it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff has yet lost its ownership as a right to manage the land of this case in light of the entries of No. 1-2 ( certified copy of each certified copy of register) and the whole purport of oral argument without dispute over the establishment of this case's land in light of the whole purport of No. 1-2 ( certified copy of each certified copy of register) and the whole purport of oral argument. (No dispute exists between the parties that the plaintiff's request for compensation consultation because the compensation price for this case's land
3. Thus, the plaintiff's principal claim is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendant in excess of the above recognized scope among the original judgment is unfair, this part of the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked, and this part of the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. The defendant's remaining appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.
Judges Kim Sang-won (Presiding Judge)