Where the State or a local government occupies and uses private land as a road site without title, the standard for calculating the amount of unjust enrichment;

The basic price of land in order to calculate the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land occupied and used by the State or a local government as a road, in cases where the State or a local government occupies the land previously occupied and used for the general public only when the land was not actually used for the traffic of the general public, the land shall be appraised according to the actual conditions of use as at the time of its incorporation, without considering the situation of the land transferred into the road. However, in cases where the State or a local government, as a road management authority, occupies the land actually used for the traffic of the general public as a road by constructing a road under the Road Act, etc. with respect to the land previously used for the traffic of the general public, or is in the form of a road, and actually

Article 741 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 95Da39946 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 150) Supreme Court Decision 97Da35559 delivered on November 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3845) Supreme Court Decision 98Da56232 delivered on April 27, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1037)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kang Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, and one other

Ulsan District Court Decision 200Na1334, 1341 decided September 21, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The basic price of land in order to calculate the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land occupied and used by the State or a local government as a road. In a case where the State or a local government occupies the land previously occupied and used for the general public only when the land was not actually used for the traffic of the general public, the land should be appraised according to the actual conditions of use as at the time of its incorporation, without considering the situation of the land transferred into the road. However, in a case where the State or a local government previously occupied or actually used for the traffic of the general public as a road management authority by constructing a road under the Road Act, etc. for the construction of a road as a road, or by performing the construction necessary for the traffic of the general public, and becomes in possession of the road as a de facto controlling entity, the land must be appraised according to the condition of restriction as a road (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

According to the evidence of inland transport, the lower court: (a) owned the non-party (the former owner of the non-party), who is the non-party (the address 1 omitted); (b) on October 14, 1976, part of the land was designated as a site for a road by urban planning; (c) on February 3, 1986, the non-party divided the above land into ( Address 1 omitted) and (iv) and (iv) and (iv) and (iv) and 3 omitted; and (iv) the non-party divided the above land into the non-party’s land for the purpose of correcting the unreasonable boundary of the land and promoting land utility according to the above urban planning; and (d) the non-party divided the above land into the above land into the non-party’s land and the non-party’s land for the purpose of using the above land, which was naturally included in the area of the non-party’s land at the time of construction and assessment (number 4 omitted); and (d) the non-party’s ownership and the non-party’s land at the first 986.

Upon examining records and evidence based on the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to roads due to violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)