If the market is actually used as a road without any legal ground, whether the claim for compensation for loss under Article 79 of the Road Act is made (negative)

In a case where the land owned by the plaintiff is actually used as a road without any legal cause, the defendant's disposal or restriction under the Urban Planning Act or the Road Act does not cause any loss to the plaintiff. Thus, there is no claim for compensation for loss under Article 79 of the Road Act.

Article 79 of the Road Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da2105 Decided July 26, 1966

Plaintiff

Large Exhibition (Attorney Lee Jae-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na6 delivered on May 28, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for compensation for losses under Article 79 (2) of the Road Act because the defendant opened and occupied a road without title on the land owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff made a claim for compensation for losses to the defendant under the provision of Article 79 (2) of the Road Act, and the court below made a decision to reject the claim for compensation for losses under the provision of "the policy to purchase the road according to the order of priority when the construction is completed or the budget is secured on the road according to the Urban Planning Act." The court below erred by abusing the principle of free evaluation of evidence that it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff made an agreement to pay compensation for losses under the provision of the Road Act. The defendant neglected the decision to pay compensation without the above, and the court below rejected the claim for compensation for losses under the provision of Article 79 of the Road Act and the previous Supreme Court precedents of interpretation. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the plaintiff's claim for compensation for losses under the provision of the Road Act, since it did not constitute a legitimate ground for rejection of the plaintiff's claim for compensation for damages under the law.

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 on the bench.

Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)