beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3.Paragraph 1 and 2 of the text of the judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Defendant’s argument in the trial of the first instance to “A” under Section 6 of the judgment of the second instance to “J”, and as such, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment. Thus, this is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【Additional Contents】
A. The summary of the defendant's assertion 1) With respect to the land in which the State or a local government was actually in common use as a road for the general public, the construction of a road under the Road Act, etc., occupied by the road management authority or the construction of a road actually necessary, and thereafter occupied the road as a de facto controlling entity, the basic price for calculating the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land should be limited to the road, which is the actual usage situation at the time of incorporation into the road, i.e., the current state, which is the actual usage situation at the time of incorporation into the road. Thus, even if the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable, the amount of unjust enrichment should be assessed on the basis of the answer,
B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The following is examined: (a) whether the instant land was actually used as a passage to the general public prior to the construction of a road as incorporated into a Cpass road; and (b) the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in the evidence Nos. 3 through 7, the fact that the instant land was incorporated into a Cpass road and the present condition of the instant land was the answer before
2) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
2. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit.