Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant and incidental appeal by the plaintiff.

The prize money of Paragraph (1) above in the original judgment may be provisionally executed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 9,926,275 won with an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from the day following the service of the claim and the application for change of cause as of May 9, 1983 to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

First, the defendant asserted that the land of the attached list 1, 2, 5, 7, and 4 is originally owned by the education committee of the non-party racing from the above education committee on January 31, 1963 at the time of the defendant's purchase of KRW 1,000 per square meter on the land of the above 4 parcels, and thereafter, the registration of ownership transfer for the non-party and the plaintiff's title transfer for each of the above 4 parcels of land has been made in sequence through the non-party and each of the above 4 parcels of land.

Therefore, according to the evidence No. 13-1 to No. 17-4 of the evidence No. 13-1 to No. 13-17 of the above 4, it can be recognized that the original registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the education committee of the non-party in the name of the non-party on the ground of sale on May 29, 1963, No. 11122, which was received on February 29, 1963, the non-party's ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the non-party on the ground of the sale on the ground that the non-party's ownership transfer registration was made and again made in the plaintiff's front. However, in addition, as to whether the above four lots of land is owned by the above education committee, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the non-party's ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the non-party on the ground that the non-party's ownership transfer registration was made in the above non-party's name at the time of the above education committee.

Second, the defendant asserts that the non-party transferred the above four parcels of land to the defendant at the time of the purchase after the purchase of the above four parcels of land, which he purchased from the Board of Education at the time of the racing, without compensation, and thereafter the registration of the above transfer of ownership in the plaintiff's name, which was completed for the above four parcels of land thereafter, is invalid. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the non-party transferred the above four parcels of land to the defendant at the time of the defendant, and the non-party transferred it without compensation at the time of the defendant, and it is not possible to invalidate each of the above transfer of ownership in the plaintiff's name on the sole basis

Third, the defendant asserts that since the land of this case is constructed as a road lawfully under the Road Act and the Urban Planning Act, it is the effect of the commencement of public use, or as long as the right of landowners is restricted under Article 5 of the Road Act, the defendant's claim for unjust enrichment of this case on the premise that the land of this case should be used without any legal cause. However, as seen above, as long as the defendant did not have the right to expropriate or purchase the land of this case to use it as a road site, the defendant City without any legal cause against the owner of this case, regardless of whether the land of this case is subject to the above laws, and therefore the defendant's assertion is groundless.

Fourth, the defendant, knowing that the land of this case is already being used as a road site, purchased it in collusion with the non-party and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party, and subsequently filed the claim of this case. Thus, the above transfer of ownership is completed for the purpose of the litigation trust, and it is invalid. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion,

Finally, the defendant asserts that if the defendant would incur loss to the plaintiff due to the possession and use of the land in this case as the road site, the claim for compensation for loss under Article 79 of the Road Act shall be set aside, and there is no room for establishing the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment under the Civil Act. However, since the compensation for loss under Article 79 of the Road Act is aimed at disposal or restriction under the Road Act, i.e., compensation for loss sustained due to legitimate cause, it differs from the return of profits arising from the possession and use of the land without legal cause as in this case.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the amount of profit to be returned to the defendant 2. The amount of profit is equivalent to the amount of rent for the land of this case. Considering the result of on-site verification conducted by the original court and the expert witness at the original court, the land of this case is already used as a road and its width is narrow and can not be used as a commercial site or a site, so it is reasonable to view that the market price of this case is 20% of the normal market price of neighboring land, and its annual rent is 7% of the market price if it is deducted from necessary expenses considering the trend of stabilizing bank interest, 1977. The amount of rent from 10.5 billion won to 20.5 billion won until February 198, 197 x 198 won to the end of 20.5 billion won until the end of 320,80 won to the end of 19.3 billion won to the end of 19.5 billion won to the end of 20 years to the end of 19.7.4.8

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above-mentioned 22,845,725 won (272,855 +22,572,870) and damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum under the Civil Act from May 11, 1983 to the date following the delivery of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause as of May 9, 1983 as of May 11, 1983. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Accordingly, the court below's judgment is just, and all appeals are dismissed as it is without merit. Article 95 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be dismissed as to the payment of litigation costs, and Article 199 of the Civil Execution Act shall be applied to the provisional execution order against the cited money under the Disposition 1 of the original judgment.

Judges Jeon Soo-dae (Presiding Judge)