[부당이득금반환][공1999.6.15.(84),1140]
Whether a double purchaser of land can claim a return of unjust enrichment against the local government using the land as a road site, knowing that the former owner had no right to use or benefit from the land to the local government (negative)
In general, in cases where a local government purchases land from the former owner and completed road construction, and the land category was changed to a road and used as a main road for not less than 20 years, and if it was purchased twice, it is common to view the location and use of the land as a site for an main road. Thus, barring any special circumstance, a purchaser is aware of the fact that the land was used as a site for an main road. Meanwhile, if a purchaser knowingly paid a considerable amount of money and purchased the land, then the purchaser would be deemed to have purchased the land for the purpose of claiming unjust enrichment or compensation for losses against the local government. In such cases, in accordance with the empirical rule, it is reasonable to view that the purchaser would have admitted that the former owner of the land was not entitled to use and benefit from the land by selling the said land as a road site or purchased it with the knowledge of such fact, even if the local government uses the said land as a site for a main road.
Articles 103 and 741 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 96Da36852 Decided November 29, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 1710), Supreme Court Decision 96Da42529 Decided January 24, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 646), Supreme Court Decision 97Da47118 Decided March 10, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 97Da52844 Decided May 8, 1998)
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Seo Hong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)
Gyeong-si (Attorney Lee Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellee)
Daegu District Court Decision 98Na5188 delivered on January 20, 1999
The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.
1. The court below acknowledged that the land of this case was originally owned by the non-party, and his wife and children jointly inherited the land of this case on January 10, 1960. The defendant incorporated the land of this case into the site and offered it to the general public for construction of road facilities such as packing work. The plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the non-party's heir on November 7, 1986 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 21, 1995 and October 20 of the same year, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment from the possession of the land of this case on or after February 24, 1992 (the plaintiff's purchase of the land of this case was based on the grounds that the former owner's right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the non-party's heir's right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the non-party's right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment from the non-party's heir on or after August 1968.
2. However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant purchased the land of this case on or around April 1968 and paid the price in full, and opened a road on the ground and occupied and used it as a road site for not less than 20 years. According to the evidence, the land of this case was a 2-line arterial road leading to the railway city. The defendant completed the confirmation and packing construction of the above road by 1970. The land category of this case was changed to all roads on August 29, 1968 and April 2, 1970. Thus, it is common to examine the location and use of the land according to the registry, the Urban Planning Confirmation Board, and the cadastral map. Thus, if the plaintiff purchased the land of this case on November 7, 1986, and the land of this case was knowingly used as the site of this case, the plaintiff should be viewed as having purchased the land of this case with the knowledge of the land of this case, and it should be viewed as having been incorporated into the compensation relation or the land of this case.
However, according to the relevant evidence, the documents related to compensation for the land incorporated into the land in the Cranc site including the instant land are kept in the Defendant’s city. According to the documents, not only the instant land but also the compensation procedure for the land incorporated into the Cranc site has already been completed. There is no evidence to deem that the Nonparty’s heir, who was the Plaintiff’s former owner, intended to purchase the instant land against the Defendant, such as a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment. While the Plaintiff purchased the instant land on November 7, 1986, the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer but did not exercise any right without completing the registration of ownership transfer, left the land for a long time without completing the registration of ownership transfer, and the Defendant’s claim for the return of unjust enrichment during the period of ownership transfer after completing the registration of ownership transfer with the winning judgment or the claimant’s death, and the Plaintiff did not have any right to request the return of unjust enrichment for the period of ownership of the previous owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da19729, supra.).
Nevertheless, the court below rejected the land of this case on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion without sufficiently examining the process of purchasing the land of this case. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out
3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)