[토지사용료청구사건][고집1974민(2),41]
The case that the road management agency is occupying and using private land as a road site without any legal cause.
If the road management agency changes the land category of the land owned by private person to a road without public notice under Article 7 of the Urban Planning Act before the revision and public notice of tax item publication under Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis under Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act, and provides it for the passage of people and vehicles, the road management agency uses the land as a road site without any
Article 741 of the Civil Act, Articles 7 and 12 of the Urban Planning Act (Act No. 1322), Article 10 of the Road Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act (Ordinance No. 2784)
Supreme Court Decision 64Da577 delivered on December 22, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 6136 delivered on November 6, 1964; Decision 72Da787 delivered on April 9, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10686 delivered on April 19, 200), Article 10(1)1834 of the Road Act, Court Gazette 488-7 delivered on April 9, 197
Plaintiff
Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul Central District Court (73Gahap2034) in the first instance trial
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The original judgment shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay 351,744 won from January 1, 1969, and 624,00 won from January 1, 1970 to 672,00 won from January 1, 1971, and 720,00 won from January 1, 1972 to 720,000 won from January 1, 1972; 720,000 won from January 1, 1973 to 768,00 won from January 1, 1973 to 764,00 won from January 1, 1974 to 5 percent per annum.
3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.
4. A provisional execution may be effected only once half of the text of the order; and
The payment of the money stated in paragraph (2) of this Article and the pronouncement of provisional execution (the plaintiff shall change its claim at the trial)
The part of the defendant's failure in the original judgment shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim on that part shall be dismissed. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Gap evidence Nos. 4-2, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, and each of the above public documents Nos. 1, 6, the court below's appraisal opinion and arguments as to the non-party No. 2's transfer of the above land to the plaintiff without any dispute. The above public notice No. 372, No. 372, No. 966, Dec. 5, 1966, which was owned by the non-party No. 1, No. 4, and the above public notice No. 1, No. 3, the above public notice No. 9, the above public notice No. 1, the above public notice No. 3, the above public notice No. 1, the above public notice No. 96, which had been given to the plaintiff on the ground that the above land was no more than the above public notice No. 96, and the above land No. 96, the above public notice No. 96, the above building permission No.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay in civil affairs with a rate of five percent per annum from January 1 to each full payment, since the plaintiff's claim is legitimate with respect to the sum of the above amounts to the plaintiff 4,079,688 won and each of the above amounts, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay in civil affairs with a rate of five percent per annum from January 1 to each full payment. The judgment below is justified. The judgment below is consistent with the judgment below within the scope of the plaintiff's claim changes, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the judgment below is to be changed with the alteration and expansion of the purport of the plaintiff's claim, and with respect to the imposition of litigation costs and the issuance of partial provisional execution, Articles 96, 89, and 199 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply
[Attachment]
Judges Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)