1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

3. Disposition of the first instance judgment No. 1-B

(b) in paragraph (3).

1. Basic facts

A. On June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased Young-gun B road 159 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and acquired the ownership transfer registration based on sale on June 29, 2004, thereby owning the instant land.

B. The land category of the instant land is indicated as “road” on the land cadastre that was destroyed in the cadastral record of the instant land and restored around April 25, 1957, and the Defendant did not take lawful procedures for compensation, such as the procedure for expropriation under the Road Act or the Urban Planning Act, but occupied and used the instant land from before the Plaintiff owned it until the date of ownership.

C. Meanwhile, on December 5, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking unjust enrichment on the instant land (Yanju District Court Decision 2006Gaso509, hereinafter “instant prior suit”), and the said court became final and conclusive on February 1, 2008 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,500,000 (the amount of KRW 1,630,000 as a result of the possession and use of the instant land during the period from December 1, 2001 to September 30, 207) to the effect that “The Plaintiff shall be paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 870,000 as a result of the appraisal cost of KRW 1,630,000 for the appraisal cost of KRW 870,000, Feb. 29, 2008.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “decision on Recommendation for Settlement of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4, Eul evidence 1-1, and Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination:

(a) In a case where the State or a local government, upon occurrence of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, occupies another’s land as a road without any lawful procedure of compensation such as the procedure of expropriation under the Road Act or the Urban Planning Act, etc., and uses it as a road, the State or a local government, regardless of whether it is a road subject to the Road Act, etc., shall not exempt the obligation

Supreme Court Decision 90Da5795 Delivered on March 12, 1991