(a) Whether a debt is included in “property” as stipulated in Article 5(1) of the Local Autonomy Act that stipulates that a local government that newly has jurisdiction over an area shall succeed to such area due to the change of district, abolition, or division or merger of local governments (negative);

(b) The case holding that the Dongjak-gu shall actually possess possession from the same day since the day when the amended Local Autonomy Act was enforced on May 1, 1988 because the Dongjak-gu is an independent local government from the Seoul Metropolitan Government and is not specifically prescribed by the Ordinance of the City concerning roads of middle and higher than middle and long-term;

A. According to Article 5(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, in the event of the change of a district of a local government or the abolition, establishment, division, or consolidation of a local government, the local government, which has jurisdiction over the area, shall succeed to its affairs and property. The term “property” in this context means only all objects and rights worth property other than cash and does not include obligations.

B. The case holding that the Dongjak-gu shall actually possess possession from May 1, 1988 of the amended Local Autonomy Act since the Dongjak-gu is a local government independent of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, and since it is not specifically prescribed by the Ordinance of the City concerning roads of middle or higher, the maintenance and management of the disputing road shall belong to Dongjak-gu from the same day.

(a)Article 5(1)(b) of the Local Autonomy Act; Article 2 and Article 3 of the same Act; subparagraph 9 of Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da23455 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2613), 91Da17207 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2803), 91Da40498 delivered on June 26, 1992 (Gong192, 2268) B. Supreme Court Decision 91Da35649 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3242)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Do4788 delivered on August 1, 200

Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na20561 delivered on September 16, 1992

1. Of the part against the Defendant, the part of the lower judgment ordering the payment of unjust enrichment and damages for delay after May 1, 198 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The form of occupation of a road by the State or a local government can be divided into possession and possession as a de facto controller of the road management authority. As such, in fact, if a road is to be approved under the Road Act or a road zone is to be established by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, possession as a road management authority may be recognized starting from the date of such determination. However, even if a road is not established under the Road Act, if the State or a local government is to implement a road reconstruction, maintenance, and repair work, such as expansion of the existing road, packing of the road, or installation of the sewerage system, and thereby for public traffic, it shall be deemed that the existing road is actually under the de facto control of the State or a local government and can be actually recognized as a controlling authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da35649, Oct. 27, 1992; 92Da9692, Oct. 9, 192; 92Da22343, Sept. 22, 19992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the land of this case owned by the plaintiff was originally constructed with a non-defluent road of about 2 meters in width and was provided for the passage of the general public. However, around 1972 through 1973 at the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office under the defendant's jurisdiction, the road packing work was implemented to expand the road width of the existing road to 15 meters, opened a road, provided for the passage of residents and vehicles, and performed the re-Packing work over several times thereafter. In addition, the defendant's jurisdiction over the defendant's Dong-gu Office, as part of the construction of one sewage packing work, including the part of the construction of the Korean government's grade middle school before the Korean government's office's office and the first half of November, 24, 1987. The defendant recognized that the road maintenance work was conducted on the land of this case, such as a road maintenance work, and that the road maintenance work was conducted on delivery, without any legal grounds for the damages to the plaintiff's owner and the land of this case.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles pointing out arguments.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to Article 5 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act (Act No. 4004, Apr. 6, 1988) Article 5 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, when the district of a local government is altered, abolished, divided or combined, the local government that newly has jurisdiction over the area shall succeed to its affairs and property. The term "property" in this context refers only to all property-value goods and rights other than cash, and it is reasonable to interpret that it does not include obligations (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da23455, Sept. 24, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Da17027, Oct. 22, 1991; 91Da40498, Jun. 26, 1992).

From May 1, 198, where the above Local Autonomy Act was enforced, the judgment of the court below that the non-party's office did not succeed to the above Dongjak-gu Office even if it had jurisdiction over the whole land of this case as an autonomous Gu, the defendant's unjust enrichment return obligation incurred by occupying the land of this case before that time does not belong to the above Dongjak-gu Office is just and there is no ground to charge

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that since the defendant lost possession and management of the road in this case and did not bear an obligation for return of unjust enrichment since he did not take an obligation for return of unjust enrichment since he did not carry out the management of the road in this case after May 1, 198 when he distributed administrative affairs related to construction, maintenance, and management of roads (not less than 12 meters wide) after the enforcement of the above Local Autonomy Act, as provided by the Ordinance of the Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities pursuant to Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the construction, maintenance, and management of roads (not less than 12 meters wide) and not less than the road in this case and the road in this case (not less than 12 meters wide), since the defendant did not have any other provision under the Ordinance of the Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities for the maintenance and management of roads, the provisions under this Ordinance are merely an internal provision for the maintenance and management of roads, and thus, the defendant is not obliged to take an external responsibility even after the enforcement of the above Local Autonomy.

The records show that the maintenance and management of the road of this case (15 meters wide) was transferred to the autonomous Gu except as provided by the defendant's municipal ordinance, because the non-party of this case was not a local government independent until April 30, 198, but was merely an affiliated organization of the defendant. However, from May 1, 198 to May 1, 198, the non-party of this case became an independent local government separate from the defendant under the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of the above Local Autonomy Act. According to Article 2 (2) of the above Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and subparagraph 9 of attached Table 2 of the same Act, the non-party of this case's road of this case (15 meters wide) as provided by the defendant's municipal ordinance. Thus, the maintenance and management of the road of this case shall belong to the above Dongjak-gu from May 1, 1988, and it shall be deemed that the above Dongjak-gu actually occupied it (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da35649, Oct. 27, 199

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Articles 2 and 3 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 9 of the same Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the defendant bears external responsibility for the management of the road of this case without any external effect that the defendant is exempted from the responsibility for management, and even after the enforcement of the above Local Autonomy Act. Therefore,

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant, which ordered the payment of unjust enrichment from the possession of the road of this case and damages for delay thereof after May 1, 198, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent