logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1969. 1. 21. 선고 68다264 판결
[손해배상][집17(1)민,015]
Main Issues

Since one's own land is used as a road without due process and its ownership is not lost, it is not possible to claim damages equivalent to the market price on the ground of the loss of ownership.

Summary of Judgment

Since the land owned by the owner is used as a road without due process and its ownership is lost, it is not possible to claim damages equivalent to the market price on the ground of the loss of ownership.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2557 delivered on January 12, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2557 delivered on January 12, 1968

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are determined.

According to the original judgment, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant has completed construction work which is incorporated into a road without legitimate procedure and used illegally in the general public, and held that it is unfair to claim compensation for damages equivalent to the market price, i.e., exchange value for the reason that the right to use is not known, and that it is impossible to return the land. The conclusion that the original judgment clearly determines whether the above land is impossible to return or not, but that the above land is not impossible to return, and that the defendant is not entitled to full compensation for damages because it is not equivalent to the above land's market price because it can not be seen that the defendant's right to use the land was lost for the reason that it can not be returned completely because it can not be seen that the right to use the land can not be returned for the reason that it can not be restored completely because it can not be seen that the defendant's right to use the land can not be returned for the reason that it can not be seen that the right to use the land can not be returned.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)

arrow