In case where a resident of a group of land provided as a passage while dividing and selling it into a housing site has performed a Saemaul project and a road packing work, whether the local government can regard that the land is illegally occupied or occupied.

If the residents, such as the purchaser of a housing site, use the land left in their own name to use it as part of the Saemaul project in order to improve efficiency, and the residents, such as the purchaser of a housing site, etc., occupy the land without the title or cause any loss to the titleholder, in order to provide the land owned by the original landowner as a passage to the public road required for the housing site by dividing and selling it into the housing site.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

Han Young-young

Socheon-gun:

Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court (83Gahap69 delivered on July 1, 200)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 116,285,00 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from May 12, 1984 to the full payment day.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

As the plaintiff's primary claim, the land listed in the attached Form 1, 2 is owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant Gun has to expropriate and use the above land by incorporating it into the road site under the Docheon and New Urban Planning Project within its jurisdiction, and therefore, it is necessary for the defendant Gun to compensate for the loss of KRW 116,285,00,000 corresponding to the market price.

According to the whole purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 16, Gap evidence Nos. 16-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 33-1 through 34, which are not disputed in its establishment, as part of the urban planning project within the jurisdiction of the defendant-gun, there was a new urban planning district decision and announcement as to the land listed in the annexed list Nos. 1 under No. 449 of Nov. 19, 1973 as part of the urban planning project within the jurisdiction of the defendant-gun, and the land listed in the annexed list No. 2 is included in the annexed list No. 78-212 of the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice No. 78-212 of May 17, 1972, but it is found that the application for the authorization of the defendant-gun and its construction procedure under the Urban Planning Act or the Road Construction procedure under the Road Act.

(10) In full view of the purport of the pleadings as follows: (i) the land in [Attachment 1] to be 2-1 to 26-2 of the evidence No. 35-1 to 45-46 of the above 2-1 to the above 2-1 to the same 2-1 to the above 2-1 to the above 2-1 to the same 3-2-1 to the above 2-1 to the new 2-1 to the new 3-1 to the new 2-1 to the above 2-1 to the new 2-1 to the new 3-1 to the new 3-2-1 to the new 2-1 to the new 3-1 to the new 2-1 to the new 2-1 to the new 2-1 to the new 2-1 to the new 2-1 to the new 3-2 to the new 2-1 to the new 2-1 to the new 3-2 to the same land category and the remaining 1 to the same 2-1 to the same 4-1 to the same land.

Therefore, under the premise that the defendant constructed a road on the land listed in the Attachment Nos. 1 and 2 according to the implementation of the Urban Planning Act, the above surrounding claim for compensation for loss cannot be accepted.

The plaintiff is a preliminary claim, without acquiring legitimate title from May 12, 1974, the defendant group's possession as a road by suspending the land indicated in the annexed Table 1,2, and installing a sewerage system from around May 12, 1974. Thus, the defendant group has a duty to return the amount of KRW 116,285,00 as unjust enrichment from among the amount of KRW 137,136,750 per rent due to its possession.

However, as seen above, the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2 is separately partitioned or a road to be used for the purpose of supplying the land owned by the original landowner as a part of a group of sites by dividing and selling it into a road, and for the purpose of providing it as a contribution required for the housing site, and is left in the name of the landowner. The land used for the passage of residents such as the purchaser of the housing site, etc. and used for the passage of residents such as the purchaser of the housing site, etc., to enhance its efficiency according to the current status of the land, the residents performed the sewerage and the road packing work as the Saemaul project. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be accepted

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claim and conjunctive claim are dismissed without merit. The judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Hun-Un (Presiding Judge)