The case holding that if the original owner renounced his right to use and make profits from the land as a road and the specific successor was aware of such circumstances at the time of succession, the unjust enrichment is not constituted even if the local government completed the construction of the road and occupied and managed the land already provided as a road.

In general, those who intend to acquire the ownership of land by auction, sale, or accord and satisfaction are expected to be able to check the location, current status, and surrounding land by means of land cadastre, registry, urban planning confirmation source, land cadastral map of related land, especially by auction, or by means of auction material specification or inspection of execution records kept in a court, according to the empirical rule. Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the original owner of land gives up his exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land as a passage of neighboring residents, and that there is a burden that neighboring residents pass the land without compensation, and at least it is reasonable to see that the former owner of the land acquires the ownership of the land after the former owner's use and benefit from the former owner's use and benefit from the former owner's use and benefit from the former owner's use and benefit from the former owner's use and benefit from the former owner's exclusive right to use and benefit from the former owner's use and benefit from the former owner's use and benefit from the former owner's use of the land without compensation until the former owner's exclusive right to use and benefit from the former owner's use.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4485, Jun. 2, 1998) (Law No. 1370, Dec. 31, 1997)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seongbuk-gu General Law Office (Law Firm Tae & Yang, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na38774 delivered on March 11, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above land was owned by the non-party 2,15 square meters on the non-party 8's land under the non-party 1's land category and the non-party 2's new land category and non-party 9's new land category and non-party 9's new land category and non-party 2's new land category were non-party 8'. The non-party 2's new land category and non-party 9's new land category were non-party 9's new land size and non-party 9's new land category and non-party 1's new land size were non-party 9's new land size and non-party 2's new land size were non-party 9's new land size and non-party 1's new land size were non-party 9's new land size and non-party 2's new land size were non-party 9's new land size and non-party 1's new land size divided into 97.

2. Generally, those who intend to acquire the ownership of the land by auction, sale, or payment in kind are land cadastre, registry, urban planning confirmation source, and cadastral map of the related land, especially in the case of auction, or by means of auction material specification or inspection of execution records kept in the court, it is naturally anticipated in light of the empirical rule that the location and surrounding land should be examined in advance. Therefore, the original owner of the land provides the land as passage of neighboring residents, and waiver of exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land and specific successor to the land after the neighboring residents passed the land without compensation, should be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the land, at least by knowing that there is a burden of restricting the above use and benefit on the land, and the land is currently used as the passage of nearby residents, and since the above non-party or all of the plaintiffs are the site of the road to be used by the neighboring residents for their contribution, and it cannot be seen that the plaintiffs were aware of the fact that the non-party company's exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case and the non-party company's exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case 9.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)