It is necessary to meet the requirements for the transfer of damages after the enforcement of the current State Compensation Act among the damages incurred continuously due to illegal acts that occurred at the time of enforcement of the Gu State Compensation Act.

Where the land owned by another person has been illegally incorporated into a road site since the enforcement of the former State Compensation Act and continues to hold it illegally, it shall not be subject to the previous provisions of the Civil Compensation Council for Compensation for Damages after the enforcement period of the new State Compensation Act.

Article 9 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1555 delivered on March 10, 1970 (Dakh 9514 delivered on September 14, 195, 18Da2059 delivered on February 10, 1970 (Dakh 5893 delivered on February 10, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18Da1316 delivered on December 9, 1969 (Dakh 971 delivered on December 9, 197, Supreme Court Decision 9Da1765 delivered on December 17, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 68Da1765 delivered on December 17, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 80Da8289 delivered on December 28, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 69Da13169 delivered on December 17, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 200Da8289 delivered on December 28, 2008).

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Jinju City

Jinju Branch of Busan District Court (74Gahap164 delivered on July 1, 200)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 219,00 each year for the amount of KRW 50,000 and KRW 68-1,73 from January 1, 1975 to Jinju-dong 68-dong, Jinju-dong, which was constructed, for each year until the plaintiff restored his right, KRW 346,650, and KRW 346,650 to the plaintiff 2, and KRW 11,20 of the same Act which were constructed from January 1, 1975 to the road from January 1, 69 of the same Act, approximately 37,14,60, and KRW 69-36,4 of the same Act, each year until the plaintiff restores his right.

The remaining claims of the plaintiff et al. are dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs incurred between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, while the costs incurred between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff 1, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff 1, respectively.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 money at the rate of KRW 3,00 per square year from January 1, 1975 and from KRW 68-1 to KRW 73,00 per square year until the disuse of the order site (total 39 square meters). The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2 money at the rate of KRW 500,000 per square year from January 1, 1975 and the rate of KRW 3,000 per square year from January 1, 1975 to the disuse of the order site (total 39 square meters).

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

In light of the fact that the first large 73 square meters of Jin-si 68-1, Jin-si 69-1, the first large 73 square meters (hereafter in this case, referred to as the "first land") is Plaintiff 1, the 69-11 large 20 large 4 large 6 large 37 large 14 large 6 large 6 large 6 p. 69-2, and the 69-36 large 4 large 8 large 4 square meters (total 39 square meters, hereinafter in this case, hereinafter referred to as the "second 2 large 39 large 39 square meters) are registered as Plaintiff 2, there is no dispute between the parties, and the witness of the first instance court without dispute over the establishment, the part of the evidence No. 8, the result of the on-site inspection by the court below, and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, and it is inevitable that this land has been used as a road for the construction of the plaintiff to the present road without any legal cause, and it cannot be recognized as the construction of the plaintiff.

The legal representative of the plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit from March 1, 1947 to December 31, 197 by claiming KRW 500,000, respectively, out of the amount of damages for the rent party from January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1973, which was the date of entry into force of the State Compensation Act, from among the damages that occurred continuously due to the illegal occupation of the defendant's above site from March 1, 1947 to the date of entry into force of the State Compensation Act. The plaintiff et al. changed his claim from the trial to December 31, 1974, and claim compensation for the rent party from January 1, 1975 to the date of the use of the above road. The plaintiff et al.'s legal representative first raised a lawsuit by the plaintiff et al. against the plaintiff et al.'s legal representative, but this claim by the plaintiff et al. does not comply with the requirements of the former state Compensation Act.

The next defendant's attorney purchased the first land of this case from the plaintiff 1, the owner of this case, and paid the price for the extension of the above road around March 1947, when the construction work of the above road was conducted on November 1, 1938 pursuant to the Joseon City Planning Ordinance, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this (the evidence No. 8 of this case only stated a vague trend that the compensation was paid at the time of the defendant Jin-ju's market).

Furthermore, the defendant's legal representative asserts that he acquired ownership of the land of this case from November 30, 1938 to 20 years, and from March 31, 1947 to 20 years, the defendant's legal representative acquired ownership of the land of this case. Thus, in order to acquire ownership of the real estate due to a false possession, he shall hold the real estate in a public performance with the intention of ownership for 20 years. Thus, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant purchased the land of this case or paid compensation as the defendant asserted, and it is difficult to recognize that the defendant occupied the land of this case with the intention to own the land of this case, since the defendant opened the road of this case 1 and 2.

Thus, since the construction of roads on the land of this case was conducted without any legitimate legal basis, it cannot be ruled out that it is an illegal possession. Therefore, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff, etc. for the damages of rent equivalent due to the above possession.

Therefore, as to the amount of damages, it can be recognized that the contents of Gap evidence No. 9 were combined with the testimony of the above witness No. 32,00 won for 1,20 won for 1972, 50 won for 30,000 won for 1974, 65,000 won for 30,000 won for 30,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 30,000 won for 1,20,000 won for 30,000 won for 30,000 won for 1,50,000 won for 30,000 won for 1,60,00 won for 30,000 won for 1,50,000 won for 30,000 won for 1,50,000 won for 30,000 won for 1,530,000 won for 】

Therefore, as requested by the plaintiffs, the defendant is obligated to pay 17,00 won to the plaintiff 1 for 3 years from January 1, 1972 to December 31, 1974, the amount of damages of 500,000 won and 500,000 won for the land of this case from January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1975 to the time when the use of the land of this case is abolished and the plaintiff 2 will recover the plaintiff's right, and the amount of damages for 3 years, 346,650 won for the above 3 years and 117,000 won for the land from January 1, 1975 to the time when the plaintiff's right is recovered. Accordingly, the defendant's claim for the plaintiff's performance of its duty is justified within the above recognized limit and the remaining claim is unfair, and thus, the judgment is cancelled in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 389 of the same Act.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)