The relationship between the determination of urban planning and the construction of roads under paragraph (2) of the Addenda to the Urban Planning Act and paragraph (2) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree thereof and the return

Under Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the Urban Planning Act (No. 2345, Dec. 30, 1972) and Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree (No. 6583, Mar. 21, 1973) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, the land of this case jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Nonparty is deemed to be a road constructed by the Defendant City at the time of March 21, 1973, and even if the urban planning decision or the construction of a road is deemed lawful from the above point of time, it does not necessarily mean that the land expropriation in the urban planning is made and the ownership of the land is transferred to the Defendant on the same day. However, the lower court’s decision

Rule of Urban Planning Act (Law No. 2345, Dec. 30, 1972); Rule of Enforcement Decree of Urban Planning Act (Ordinance No. 6583, Mar. 21, 1973); Article 741 of Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Park Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2872 delivered on May 15, 1980

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the First Ground:

The court below decided that the land in this case that the defendant constructed a road in fact around June 1967 was owned by the plaintiff and the non-party after purchasing it from the former owner on August 30, 1959 and completing the registration of ownership transfer as of December 14 of the same year. The records show that the original trial is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of the evaluation of evidence or incomplete deliberation in the course of leading up to the trial.

With respect to the second ground:

The court below is just in holding that the land of this case is a road constructed by the defendant at the time of March 21, 1973 pursuant to Section 2 of Addenda of the Urban Planning Act (1972. 30. 30. 19) and Section 2 of Addenda of the same Enforcement Decree (1973. 21. 21. 1973. 21. 21.) and the urban planning decision or the construction of the road is deemed lawful from the above point of time, but the land expropriation under the urban planning is made and the ownership of the land is transferred to the defendant on the same day. The defendant's profits from the use of the land of this case are unjust enrichment, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unjust enrichment, the legitimacy of the defendant's possession, and the grounds for non-payment due to the omission of the judgment on

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

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)