beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, except for the modification of the part concerning the fifth and nineteenth parts of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Modification] In light of the fact that the time of incorporation of each real estate of this case into the road is around the Korean War, and the form of the above road is a straight line, it is reasonable to deem that the state or local government opened a military use planning road on each of the real estate of this case used as the site around the Korean War, and possessed each of the real estate of this case. Accordingly, the land price for calculating unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of each of the real estate of this case should be assessed on the premise that it is a site.
In full view of the images of the above facts as stated in Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 10-1, 2, and 3, each real estate of this case was not included in the road at the time of Japanese colonial rule, and its land category was the site. Since then, the real estate of this case was included in the road on December 21, 1960, and it was indicated as the same as the result of the survey conducted on December 21, 1960. The three real estate of this case was not included in the road around December 21, 1960. The land category was changed to the road according to the State's non-reported land rearrangement project on September 20, 1962, and even as a result of the survey conducted in 1965, the real estate of this case was included in the road of this case, and it was recognized that the land category was included in the road of this case, and that it was directly extended after December 1, 1960.
However, the following circumstances, i.e., the evidence No. 11-3, No. 12-1 and No. 2, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, are as follows: