Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 57-2 of the same Act, Article 4 of the Public Compensation for Loss, Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 6-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Civil History District Court (89 Gohap16671)

1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's failure shall be revoked, and the part of the future performance suit corresponding to the order to pay KRW 314,062 every month from March 17, 1990 shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim concerning the remaining part shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay 12,734,187 won to the plaintiff and 2,512,50 won from January 1, 1986; 2,713,500 won from January 1, 1987; 2,814,00 won from January 1, 1988; 2,914,50 won from January 1, 1989; 1,779,687 won from May 20, 1989 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case; 25 percent per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; 20 percent per annum from June 20, 1989 to the date of acquisition of ownership of Seongdong-dong 281,00 won; and 30 percent per annum from May 20, 1989 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case; and

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

Among the plaintiff's claim, the part claiming the return of unjust enrichment of 314,062 won per month from Seongdong-gu, Seoul to 228-10 to 201 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") from Seongdong-gu, Seoul from the date of the closing of argument is unlawful since it could not specify the deadline as a lawsuit for future performance. Thus, the claim of this case is in possession of the land of this case owned by the defendant as a road without title, and the claim part after the date of the closing of argument is called a lawsuit for future performance. In order to make a decision ordering future performance, the due date of the obligation shall come in the future, and the continuation of the cause of default shall not be determined at the time of the closing of argument. In this case, if the period of responsibility is uncertain and it cannot be determined definitely at the time of the closing of argument, it cannot be decided to order future performance, and the part of the claim of this case shall continue to exist within the time of the plaintiff's possession or use of the land of this case until the time of closing of the land of this case.

2. Judgment on the merits

The facts of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (No. 3-3), Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, 2 (the same as Eul evidence 6-2), 3-2 (the same as Eul evidence 6-2), 3 (the new evidence 6-4), Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 98-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, 3 (the new evidence 5-1), Eul evidence 5-1, 6-1, 2-1, 3 (the new evidence 2-1, 96-1, 2-1, 3 (the new evidence 9-2, 196-1, 2-1, 3 (the new evidence 97).2).1,

Since the Plaintiff, around 1969, opened and occupied a road without title after the determination and public notice of urban planning with no title, thereby gaining profit equivalent to its usage and causing considerable damages to its owners, the Defendant asserts that the above Kim Jong-san’s heir is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff from May 19, 1989 and June 20, 19 to the time when the Defendant acquired ownership of the instant land, the Defendant provided the above land to the 2nd 3rd 2nd 1st 5th 2th 5th 6th 6th 6th 4th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1969 4th 1st 3th 4th 1966th 2th 28th 3th 1966th 28th 296th 28th 3th 196th 28th 3th 19 of the above land.

3. If so, the part of the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking future performance from March 17, 1990, which is the day following the date of the closing of argument, shall be dismissed, and the remainder shall be dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair with different conclusions, the part of the defendant's plaque among the judgment of the court below shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case corresponding to the part ordering future performance from March 17, 1990 among the above part shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim concerning the remainder shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost both the first and second

Judges Nohn-Du (Presiding Judge)