Whether unjust enrichment is made where a local government has undergone the procedure of expropriation, etc. or uses private land as a road site without legitimate compensation

If a local government uses a private land as a road site without any expropriation or purchase procedure or payment of lawful compensation, the local government benefits the interest of the clinical party without any legal ground, regardless of whether the above road is a road subject to the Road Act.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da2588 Decided February 26, 1973; 72Da2396 Decided March 20, 1973; 77Da508 Decided October 10, 1979; 80Da1524 Decided October 26, 1982; 80Da1524 Decided October 26, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Dok-si, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 83Na1692 delivered on May 9, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

As long as the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with respect to each land of this case under the name of the plaintiff as the court below's approval, the plaintiff shall be presumed to have lawfully acquired the ownership. Even if there are such grounds as alleged in the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be concluded that each land of this case is not included in the subject matter of sale or that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff is not consistent with the substantive rights relations. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rejected the defendant's claim that the above registration is invalid because it does not coincide with the substantive rights relations is just, and there is no violation of

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below has duly confirmed the fact that the defendant, as stated in its reasoning, used the land of this case as a road site, there is no expropriation or purchase procedure or payment of lawful compensation. In such a case, regardless of whether the above road is a road subject to the Road Act or not, the defendant has expressed its opinion that it is a party member's benefit without any legal ground (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da2588 delivered on February 26, 1973; Supreme Court Decision 72Da2396 delivered on March 20, 1973; Supreme Court Decision 77Da508 delivered on October 10, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 80Da1524 delivered on October 26, 1982).

In the above opinion, the judgment of the court below which cited the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment of this case is just and the decision of the party member in the statement of theory does not constitute an appropriate precedent in this case, and it is not reasonable to argue that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on

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

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)