(a) The validity of permission for occupation of miscellaneous property owned by the Si with knowledge of it as a road site; and

B. The purport that unjust enrichment is obtained from the property or labor of another person, which is the content of unjust enrichment.

It cannot be recognized as a road under this Act unless it has gone through procedures such as the kind of road, name, starting point, closing point, and announcement of important passage points pursuant to the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree and Enforcement Rule of the same Decree.

Article 57-2(2) of the Local Finance Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act

Oral Commercial Corporation

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na639 delivered on June 25, 1971

All appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant respectively.

(day) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in calculating the amount of unjust enrichment that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff, if the defendant accepted the building in a legitimate manner, the compensation amount should have been paid to the plaintiff. Under the appraisal result (additional appraisal) of the non-party of the first instance trial, the compensation amount should be regarded as a considerable amount at the objective market price at the time of removing the building by vicarious execution of the case to the above building, barring any other circumstances, and under the appraisal result of the non-party of the first instance trial, the compensation amount should be calculated on the ground that the general market price of the above building and the juries building at the time of removing the above building would be KRW 16,300 per square day, and the above additional appraisal was examined by the records, it is clear that the above appraisal was made at the pure market price of the building in this case, but according to the facts established by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the construction operator of the road in this case was unlawful in removing the plaintiff's building in this case, and thus, it should be viewed that the compensation amount would continue to exist in the above market height.

(A) We examine the first ground for appeal as to the legal representative Kim Jong-soo as well as the first ground for appeal on the ground of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below found, based on evidence, that the defendant Si abolished the use as a road site on the attached list No. 1, which was established on June 2, 1962, as of December 26, 1936, and completed all the procedures for management exchange of state property as of August 27, 1962, the above property was transferred to the Minister of Finance and Economy, who is the managing authority of state-owned general property. Thus, the court below held that not only the above real estate which was established between the plaintiff and the defendant lost its validity, but also the determination and publication of the above land as a road site as stipulated in No. 722 of the General Decree No. 1962, which was enforced on June 2, 1962, and that the above provision of Article 7 of the former Road Act, which was enforced on the premise that the management authority's disuse of the road as of June 2, 196, and that there was no violation of law by the supervisory authority of the road as well as by the former Road Act.

(3) We examine the grounds of appeal No. 2 as to Defendant’s attorney-at-law.

Although the road management agency's permission for occupation and use of the above miscellaneous property belongs to the administrative act and the land lease contract belongs to bilateral contract under the Civil Act, it is like a theory of lawsuit, if it applied for permission to occupy and use the miscellaneous property owned by the defendant Si with the knowledge of the miscellaneous property as a road site, and if the permission was granted, it may not be effective as permission to occupy and use the road as an administrative act as long as the object is not a road site but a miscellaneous property as a contract establishing a relationship for occupation and use of miscellaneous property, not an administrative property. However, as long as the contents of the contract establishing a relationship for occupation and use of miscellaneous property, it cannot be deemed to have been recognized as a lease contract for the above miscellaneous property in violation of the cooking and the empirical rule, and the defendant City recognized the plaintiff's right to use the above miscellaneous property and recognized the plaintiff's right to use the above miscellaneous property, and the construction permission was granted to the above miscellaneous property by both parties, despite the fact that the above miscellaneous property listed in the 2 list attached to the original judgment, it did not err in the grounds for appeal.

(G) We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant-appellant.

No. 1.5 points, if the original judgment was examined before and after the original judgment, it seems that there was no dispute between the parties or that there was no dispute in view of the whole purport of pleading. It does not purport to determine the parcel number of the land indicated in the attached Table 1, 2, or the number of the land indicated in the attached Table 3, 4, because there was no dispute over the construction number of the building indicated in the attached Table 1, 2, and this case's building (the third building on the land list No. 1 and the fourth building on the land list No. 2, and the purport to determine the fact that there was no dispute over the building removed by the defendant City according to the same circumstance as the original judgment's instructions, it cannot be said that there was no error in the incomplete deliberation or insufficient reasoning in view of the whole purport of the present case's pleading, and as to the parcel number of each of the above real property and the lot number of the land indicated in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3,4, and there were no errors in the original judgment that the plaintiff did not have determined the above facts.

No. 2. We examine the evidence adopted by the court below in light of the records and examine the attached list No. 2 of the original judgment, not the road site, but the land owned by the defendant, and acquired by the plaintiff company while using the attached list No. 2 of the original judgment as the site for office and store before March 1953 with the permission of the defendant, and the plaintiff company applied for permission to occupy and use the above land as the road site by misunderstanding the above land as the road site, and followed lawful procedures after obtaining permission to occupy and use the road site from the defendant city with the above misunderstanding that the above land was the road site, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the construction permission to newly construct or remove the above land on Sep. 17, 1954, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the construction permission to newly construct or remove the above land on the site of the defendant's building without permission from the defendant city with the above misunderstanding of the original judgment to the 20th of the above new building site.

No. 3. The road announced under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy shall be regarded as the road as the theory of lawsuit, and it shall be subject to the Road Act. Accordingly, it shall not be deemed as an error of law in the law by the defendant market price, who is the managing body, in accordance with the provision of the Road Act, regarding the first list of land in this case, as well as in this case, it shall not be deemed as null and void since it did not make a public announcement (see the judgment on the ground of appeal by the defendant Kim Chang-chul, as determined by the judgment of the court below). As long as the above land is discontinued as its use as administrative property and transferred to the Minister of Finance and Economy who is the managing office, the decision as the site for the theory of lawsuit under the Ordinance of the Joseon City Planning and Planning, and the decision as the site for the above land becomes null and void (No. 722) and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the abolition of the original judgment as the land of this case, and it shall not be concluded that the above land is valid and void.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that vicarious removal of the building of this case was legitimate by the above Nos. 1 through 3, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant had benefit equivalent to the compensation at the time of the defendant, unless there is an error of law in the judgment below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that vicarious removal of the building of this case was legitimate by the above No. 1 through 3. It cannot be viewed that there is no obligation to return unjust enrichment by establishing tort if the court below is the same as the facts duly confirmed, and "the plaintiff's property or service benefits accrue from another's property" which is the contents of unjust enrichment already belongs to the other person's actual property, as well as the one which naturally obtains benefits from the other's property, i.e., if the other person's property was acquired as a matter of course and it did not increase another's property, and thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the damages arising from the removal of the defendant's property of this case, or in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the damages arising from the decrease of the defendant's property.

(o) Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant respectively. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court