Methods of calculating unjust enrichment in cases of using another's land as a road without lawful procedures;

In general, since the land price of land increases by a road near the vicinity, it shall not be calculated on the basis of the rent, which is the basis for calculating unjust enrichment, as above, since the land price increases by deducting the rate of increase in general land price from the rate of increase in the surrounding land price, it shall be deemed the development gains suffered by the land, and it shall be reasonable to calculate unjust enrichment per rent by deeming the land price of the surrounding land as the land price of the surrounding land where the road was constructed, and the amount obtained by deducting the development gains from the land price of the surrounding land should be considered as the land price where the road was constructed.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

80,000 et al.

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (73Gahap3778) in the first instance trial

1. Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered under the above order shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims against the above part shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay 31,870 won each to the plaintiff Samsung Man, 191,220 won, 63,740 won each to the plaintiff Lee Jong-man, 31,870 won each to the plaintiff Lee Jong-man, the plaintiff Lee Jong-hee's entertainment, the plaintiff Yoon-hee's entertainment, the leap-hee's entertainment, the leap-hee's entertainment, the leap-ing net, the

3. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes for the heads of the first and second instances and four minutes for them shall be borne by the plaintiffs and the remainder by the defendants.

The plaintiffs' legal representative pay 1,062,614 won to the plaintiffs Yoon Man, 354,204 won, and 177,102 won to the rest of the plaintiffs, respectively. The defendant's legal representative is seeking a declaration of provisional execution and the judgment that the costs of lawsuit should be borne by the defendant.

The defendant-appellant has revoked the original judgment, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs is sought.

On October 5, 1970, from around 1945, 123 of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Automatic 65-2, the ownership of Non-Party 123 was originally owned by Non-Party 5 from around 1945, and the plaintiffs jointly succeeded to the property (the shares of the plaintiff 6/14, 2/14, 2/14, and 1/14, respectively). The defendant has used the above land as a road since it had been actually used as a road before before the time, without going through a public announcement or legitimate acceptance procedure for the recognition of routes under the Road Act, designated the route of the city bus by carrying out packing work, etc. on the road and designating the bus route, etc. by an ombudsman using the part as a road, thereby gaining a benefit equivalent to the rent and causing damage to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the profits to the plaintiffs. Thus, the reasons why the defendant is decided as a member of the party in accordance with Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, it is difficult to examine the amount of unlawful gains from the construction of a road near the road. In general, the price of the land shall be affected, so it shall not be calculated on the basis of the rent which serves as the basis for calculating unjust gains from this land. As above, it shall not be calculated on the basis of the increase in the land price and shall be based on the previous condition. As recognized earlier, it shall be used as a small-scale road from August 15 to June 25, 196, while it was used as a military road from the first time for 1967, it is difficult for the defendant to calculate the above amount of 8th appraisal value of the old date before the land is used as a road. Accordingly, in this case, it shall be difficult to determine the amount of 19th appraisal value of the land as a result of this case, which shall be determined on the basis of the increase in the land price around the 196th appraisal rate, and it shall be unreasonable to determine the amount of 10th appraisal value of the land which would be deducted from the existing appraisal rate of the land.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above amount of 446,182 won to the plaintiff leapman in response to the plaintiffs' share of the amount of 191,220 won, 63,740 won, and 31,870 won respectively to the remaining plaintiffs (the above amount is less than the plaintiff's renunciation). Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is justified within the above limit, and the remaining part is dismissed. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair and the defendant's appeal against this portion is reasonable, the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above amount among the judgment of the court below is revoked, and the defendant's claim against the above amount is dismissed, and the remaining part of the judgment of the court below is dismissed. The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the remaining part of the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the 4th of the court of first and second trials are all divided, and the remainder of the plaintiffs is assessed against the defendant.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)