The case rejecting a claim for return of unjust enrichment by a co-owner of the disputing land on the ground that the right to use and benefit from the previous land is lost, and that the right to use and benefit from the previous land does not fall under the dispute, if the land in dispute designated as the road site was excluded from the land in which the land in dispute was replaced with the land in which the land in dispute was replaced with the land in lots.

The case rejecting a claim for return of unjust enrichment by a co-owner of the disputing land on the ground that the right to use and benefit from the previous land is lost, and that the right to use and benefit from the previous land does not fall under the dispute, if the land prior to the partition of the disputing land designated as the road site was excluded from the land subject to the substitution, and that the right to use and benefit from the land subject to the substitution does not fall under the dispute.

Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Da27560 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong1986, 436) Decided 11, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 92Da27577 delivered on October 13, 1992

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Or-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na14422 delivered on May 22, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on evidence, determined that approximately 500,00, including the land in this case, was designated as a land zone as part of the land zone rearrangement plan granted by the Joseon General Public Notice of October 31, 1939 and January 15, 1940, and that the land in this case was designated as a road site as a result of the land zone rearrangement plan. On June 25, 1940, the Do governor, Chungcheongnam-do became the project implementer and the above project plan was fixed, and the land was not determined and notified to each owner of the above land under Article 47 of the Decree and Article 6 of the Rules on the Calculation of Land Price and the Calculation of Land Price, and that the land in this case, which was before the land division, was excluded from the previous land substitution plan, and that the previous land substitution right was lost as well as the previous land substitution right was not determined and thus, the owner of the land in this case was not entitled to use and benefit from the land in this case and the previous land substitution.

The assertion ultimately leads to the lower court’s finding of facts, which are the exclusive right of the lower court, and the cooking of evidence, or that the lower court’s judgment is erroneous.

(2) In a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment like the instant case, the final and conclusive judgment rendered by the owner of a road site is deemed based on the facts acknowledged without submitting the detailed statement of replotting, etc.

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.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)