Right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against a person who purchased land in the era of Gu Resident Law but did not complete the registration;

Any person who purchased land before the enforcement of the Civil Act, but completed the registration within six years as stipulated in Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act, without making the registration within the period of September 22, 1970, acquires ownership at the time of completion of the registration. Therefore, a person who purchased land from the time of the enforcement of the Civil Act may file a claim for return of unjust enrichment from September 22,

Article 186 of the Civil Code, Article 10 of the Civil Code

Plaintiff

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court (70A480 delivered on January 2, 200)

(1) All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

(2) The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant on an equal basis.

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 309,611 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from December 31, 1970 to the full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought (the delivery part of land is withdrawn at the trial).

The plaintiff shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 293,147 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from December 31, 1970 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution, and the defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(1) First, we examine the establishment of unjust enrichment.

If Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-1, 5-1, 7-1, 8-1, and 9-2 of the above evidence Nos. 2-1, 7-2, and 8-1 of the above evidence No. 9 were all recorded on the testimony of non-party 1 of the court below without dispute, the plaintiff purchased the above evidence Nos. 9-2, 356-2, 350 and 356-3 of the above evidence Nos. 97 (hereinafter this case's land) on the land of non-party 1, 7-2, 9-1, 7-2, 9-2, and 9-2, and the plaintiff's right was not registered on the land of non-party 1, 97-2, 197, but the non-party 3 died on May 17, 1954, and the plaintiff was found to have been registered on the land of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant has the duty to return the benefits accruing from the possession cultivation of the land in this case to the plaintiff who is the owner, unless it is alleged that the cultivation of the land in this case is the legal cause and there is no proof that it would be the legal cause. Although the defendant purchased the land in this case, it is the farmland that was cultivated by the non-party 4 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that it was purchased by the government under the same law because it is not the non-party 3's own farmland. Therefore, although the plaintiff asserted that it cannot be the owner of the land in this case, there is no evidence to support the non-party 5, 6, and 7's testimony, but there is no evidence to support the non-party 6's testimony, and if the non-party 1's testimony is all considered as the non-party 1's testimony on December 1, 1937, the non-party 4 did not reach the age to cultivate this land in this case at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.

(2) Furthermore, according to Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act, the number of damages for delay of the plaintiff's acquisition and loss of real rights over the above real estate 10 days prior to the enforcement date of the Civil Act x 10 years prior to the acquisition of real estate x 10 years prior to the enforcement date of the Civil Act . Thus, the non-party 3 purchased the above land prior to the enforcement date of the Civil Act, but the non-party 3 did not complete the registration by the above 10 days prior to the completion date of the registration under its own name . The plaintiff cannot be viewed as having a relation of claiming ownership of the above land prior to the acquisition date of the above 4 years prior to the expiration date of 7 years prior to the acquisition date of the above 10 days prior to the acquisition date of the above real estate by 10 days prior to the expiration date of the above 10 days prior to the acquisition date of the above real estate by 10 days prior to the acquisition date of the above real rights by the deceased non-party 3. It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's acquisition date.

(3) If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff and the defendant with the same conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 95, 92, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judge Han Man-Shan (Presiding Judge) Lee Man-soon