The case holding that unjust enrichment is not unjust enrichment

Even though there is a difference between the actual market price and the defendant's application for a lawful ruling under the Land Expropriation Act and the determination of compensation for losses, the defendant cannot be interpreted as taking advantage of the difference without any legal cause.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul District Court of First Instance (66A7133)

The appeal by the plaintiff, etc. is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The plaintiff et al. shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay 1,084,279 won to the plaintiff 1 and 1,208,907 won to the plaintiff 2 respectively.

The court costs are assessed against all of the defendants in the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

The gist of the facts alleged by the plaintiffs is that the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 525 U.S. children's 150 to 19 on the same ground and the extract assessment 13 on the same ground is the plaintiff 1, 25 to 21 on the same 518-21 on the same 518-21 on the same 22-2 of the same 518-22 of the same 518, and the 1st 22-day store concurrently holding a house for coagu and coagu, and as part of the urban planning project, the defendant accepted the above land owned by the plaintiff et al. pursuant to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land Expropriation Act and moved each above ground building to others; the 20-day land to 80-day land and the 20-day land of the plaintiff 1 on June 20, 1966, the Central Land Expropriation Committee is the plaintiff 1's 435,7277 won and the 1967 20-day land price of the above land.

According to the evidence of the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al. accepted the land of this case through legitimate procedures, and the decision on compensation does not reach an agreement between the parties, so the Central Land Expropriation Committee, at the request of the plaintiff et al., decided the time and amount of compensation as alleged by the plaintiff et al.. In the event that there is an objection against the decision, the Central Land Expropriation Committee may file an objection in accordance with the provisions of the Land Expropriation Act, and file an administrative litigation, and seek cancellation or modification of the decision on the objection. Therefore, it is not possible for the plaintiff et al. to dispute the result of the above decision in accordance with such procedures, but even if the defendant applied for a lawful decision in accordance with the Land Expropriation Act and applied for a lawful decision in accordance with the result of the decision, it cannot be interpreted that the defendant took advantage of the difference without any

In the same way, the defendant's claim for return of the principal claim on the premise that the difference between the actual market price and the compensation for losses decided by the Central Land Expropriation Committee is unjust, but it is not necessary to decide on the remaining points. The original judgment dismissing the principal claim by the plaintiff et al. is unreasonable due to changes in the cause of the claim by the plaintiff et al., but the plaintiff et al.'s claim cannot be dismissed disadvantageously in this case. Thus, the appeal by the plaintiff et al. is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition under Articles 384, 95, 93, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)