The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Order 1-B of the judgment of the court of first instance is "No. 4. 2019."

1. Basic facts

A. On August 23, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased 102 square meters prior to the Nam-gu B (hereinafter “instant land”) and 235 square meters prior to D prior to D (the land category was changed to a building site; hereinafter “D land”) from C on August 23, 2007, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on September 4, 2007.

B. On August 31, 2007, the instant land was divided into the area of 647 square meters (hereinafter “E land before division”). At that time, the land before division was divided into the area of 310 square meters (the land category was changed to the area of 310 square meters on April 24, 2008; hereinafter “E land after division”), the instant land and D land were divided into the area of 310 square meters (hereinafter “E land after division”).

C. On the other hand, on March 20, 1979, G (category 3) was determined as urban planning facilities (road) by means of F in the announcement of the Gyeongbuk-do, and the instant land was included in G in the said lawsuit.

The Plaintiff intended to newly construct a multi-family house on the instant land and D land, but on October 16, 2007, the instant multi-family house with the fourth floor (hereinafter “multi-family house in this case”) was newly built on D land by obtaining a building permit only for D land on the same grounds as the aforementioned sub-paragraph (c), and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the instant multi-family house in the name of the Plaintiff on March 31, 208.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition】 non-contentious facts; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8; Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); significant facts in this court; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

(a) If the State or a local government occupies another person’s land as a road without taking lawful procedures for compensation such as the procedure for expropriation under the Road Act or the Urban Planning Act, the State or a local government, regardless of whether such land is a road subject to the Road Act, shall not exempt the duty to return unjust enrichment due to such occupation, regardless of whether it is a road subject to the Road Act, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 90Da5795 Delivered on March 12, 1991