Whether a person who has gained substantial benefits by occupying and using a road without permission under the Road Act can bring a dispute on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the benefits and the loss, etc. (negative)

Unless there are special circumstances to deny its validity, unlike cases where unjust enrichment is calculated based on a claim under private law, such as where the occupation and use of a road without permission is excessive compared to the actual gain or damage, the amount of unjust enrichment cannot be asserted on the ground that the person who occupied and used the road without permission has no substantial causal relation between the gain and the loss, etc., in accordance with Articles 80-2, 40, and 43 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 5894 of Feb. 8, 199), Article 26-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16510 of Aug. 6, 199), and ordinances of each local government delegated under the above Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16510 of Aug. 6, 199).

Articles 40, 43, and 80-2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 5894 of Feb. 8, 1999); Article 26-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Road Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16510 of Aug. 6, 1999)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Central Daily Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jong-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu3166 delivered on December 24, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling evidence. The plaintiff constructed a parking lot and a flower on the land owned by the plaintiff around 1992, and installed a flower up to 80.5m2 of the attached drawing (A) of the court below among the roads of this case, and occupied and used the retaining wall and the parking lot structure of this case until now, and occupied and used the above fireproof team as a whole, and occupied the above fireproof part of the road of this case. Further, the fireproof team established in the above Item (A) has a certain utility on the part of the plaintiff, such as raising the value of the land owned by the plaintiff, which is connected with the landscape of the parking lot structure owned by the plaintiff, and it cannot be viewed as an occupation without any substantial benefit to the plaintiff. In light of the records, the court below's determination as above is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to unjust enrichment or misunderstanding the legal principles as stated in the above Article 160 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Road Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1982, Apr. 198, 1998). , 20198).

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

In order to apply the principle of trust protection to the act of an administrative agency in administrative legal relations, the court below held that the administrative agency should first issue the public opinion list that is the object of trust to the individual, second, that there is no reason for the individual to believe that the opinion list of the administrative agency is justifiable, and third, that the individual should have trusted that the opinion list of the administrative agency should have committed any act. Fourth, by the administrative agency's disposition contrary to the above opinion list, the administrative agency's trust in the opinion list should cause an infringement on the individual's interest in trust by making a disposition contrary to the above opinion list, and fourth, even if the defendant did not impose the road occupation fee of this case on the plaintiff for more than 30 years without giving rise to the issue of unauthorized occupation and use of the road of this case, the defendant cannot be said to violate the principle of trust protection, in light of the fact that the defendant discovered the plaintiff's unauthorized occupation and use of the public land of this case and led to the disposition of unjust enrichment of this case, the judgment of the court below is justifiable in light of relevant records.

3. 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)