1. The facts established by the court below are as follows.

A. The first and the second land of this case (the 176-7 Miscellaneous 391 square meters, the 176-15 square meters, the 176-15 square meters, the 176-2 square meters, the 861 square meters, which was originally owned by Nonparty Lee Chang-dong, started to be used as a de facto road that was divided into a road to which the land category of the 876 square meters (265 square meters) of May 27, 1972 was changed to the 176-7 square meters of the 176-7 square meters of the 1972.

B. After that, the above Lee Jong-young donated the above 176-7 road 876-7 square meters to the Young-gu National School Promotion Council, and transferred its ownership on November 19, 1974, and the above Young-gu National School Promotion Council continued to use it as a road even after transferring its ownership after selling it to the non-party Yok-si on December 27 of the same year.

C. On August 4, 1980, 1980. The above Yok-si again divided it into 673 square meters and 176-15 road at 203 square meters, and changed the land category of the above 176-7 square meters and 673 square meters into miscellaneous land, and closed the roads on the above two lots, and instead, opened a new road at 189-6, 188-9 square meters in width.

D. However, after the ownership of the above two parcels of land was transferred to the non-party problem exchange, residents' petition continued to exist even after they had been closed on December 15, 1983, and the above 176-7 and 176-15 of the above 176-7 and the previous road was used. On December 19, 19 of the same year, a new road was built again on the above 176-7 and 176-15 land. On the other hand, the part of the above two parcels of land constructed on the road, except the part of the road included in the urban planning among the above two parcels of land (the part 1 and 2 of this case at present), which was donated to the defendant at the time without compensation. The above 176-7 was divided into the above 176-16 and the road 176-25 meters at the time of the above 176-28 and the road 175 meters at the time.

E. On September 3, 1987, the Plaintiff received a decision to grant a successful bid for the land Nos. 1 and 2 from the Gwangju District Court and confirmed the decision and paid the price in full.

2. The judgment of the court below

A. Furthermore, the lower court recognized that the Defendant City permitted the occupation and use of roads for the land Nos. 1 and 2 in this case to the Director General of the New Telecommunications Construction Bureau around May 1987 and possessed it from the time of carrying out packing work, and that the Defendant City occupied it

B. As above, inasmuch as the issue exchange, which is the owner of the land Nos. 1 and 2, was opened as a passage leading to the contribution of December 15, 1983 and provided to neighboring residents, barring any other special circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from each of the above land since the Plaintiff, the original owner, etc. granted the right to use and benefit from the land to the successor of the land and all of the residents in the land, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment was rejected on the ground that the possession of each of the above land by the Defendant

3. Judgment of party members

A. However, in principle, a person who acquires land at a successful bid shall acquire ownership without any restriction or burden, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, if the problem exchange, which is the original owner of the land in this case, provides it to neighboring residents for a passage, he shall be granted the right to free pass the land to all persons who own the land in question, and thus, even if he cannot exercise his exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, he shall not be deemed to succeed to the obligation of the successful bidder of the land, as a matter of course, and even if he cannot exercise his exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, he shall not be deemed to exercise his exclusive right to use and benefit from the land in question, unless there are special circumstances. The judgment of the court below does not contain any reasons or reasons that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have suffered any damage due to the possession of the land in this case by the defendant market.

The judgment of the court below shall not be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition of ownership due to successful bid, or in the incomplete hearing or incomplete hearing.

B. Furthermore, according to the plaintiff's evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2, the registration of the establishment of the above land was conducted four times from April 4, 1984 to September 13, 1985, when the non-party 1 owned the problem. The auction of this case was commenced by the non-party 1's invitation, transfer, and Kim Jong-young's application. However, according to the above evidence Nos. 188-6 (13 square meters), 189-4 (150 square meters), 189-9 (178 square meters), 188-2 (17 square meters)'s response to the plaintiff's request for sale of this case's land, the court below's conclusion that the plaintiff's request for sale of this case's land was non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's disposal of this case's land.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)