[토지사용료][공1975.7.1.(515),8458]
The nature of unjust enrichment in a case where the local government uses the land in dispute without title regardless of whether or not the Road Act applies.
When a local government uses land owned by a private person as a road without title, unjust enrichment is established regardless of whether the road is subject to the application of the Road Act.
Fixed light ceremony
Attorney Song-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Daegu High Court Decision 71Da864 delivered on October 17, 1973
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.
(1) As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal
The facts established by the original judgment are about 176 square meters in the real possession of the land in this case, and this recognition is right, and the land category is a road, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant market occupies the road. Therefore, there is no error of law in the judgment of the court below in the same purport.
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
(2) As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant had opened and used the road from August 176 to May 15 of the land of this case, and held that the defendant Si has a duty to compensate the plaintiff as unjust enrichment because it was the possession and use of the land of this case for the original time period without the title to the land use (the period during which the plaintiff acquired the right to claim compensation). Thus, as long as the defendant and the plaintiff are recognized to have no legal title to the land use of this case between the defendant and the plaintiff, the court below has a duty to return unjust enrichment to the defendant regardless of whether the road of this case is subject to the Road Act (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da2396, Mar. 20, 73). The court below did not need to deliberate on the recognition and public announcement of the route, and it is clear that the above claim and the approval of the court below are compensation for unjust enrichment due to the use of the land of this case without the title to the land use.
In addition, it is not possible to employ the Plaintiff since the lower court’s exclusive authority over fact-finding is returned to the lower court, which included the lower court’s judgment that held that the land in question was transferred to the Plaintiff as a lawsuit trust, rather than the lawsuit trust. The argument is without merit.
Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)