Where the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is engaged in packing works and construction works, such as sewerage, on the land owned by a private person, which is actually used as a road, the possessor of the relevant road site.

If private land has been used as a road leading to the contribution of neighboring residents, the category of the land is changed into a road or is incorporated into a road site in the urban planning, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City has actually rendered construction works such as packaging construction and sewerage system, so it cannot be said that Seoul Special Metropolitan City has opened the land as a road and gains profits.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da2003 Delivered on May 9, 1978, 78Da2086 Delivered on October 16, 1979

[Judgment of the court below]

Hongk Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na592 delivered on August 3, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the court below's determination, the land of this case was formed as a de facto road from before the plaintiff acquired ownership to his meritorious service ( Address 1 omitted), and the situation where the land of this case was formed as a road around September 14, 1978 by the non-party who was the owner of the land of this case ( Address 3 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted) who had been the owner of the land of this case including the land of this case, was divided from the above land of this case which was actually provided as a road since then, and the neighboring residents including the plaintiff who purchased the above land continued to contribute to the road of this case. Based on these facts, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the return of unjust enrichment of this case under the presumption that the defendant occupied the land of this case and constructed it as a road.

In light of the records, we affirm that the court below's selection of evidence, which was conducted to find the above facts, is legitimate, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any misunderstanding of the incomplete hearing.

In addition, if the facts are as above, although the land of this case is changed into a road or is incorporated into a road site in accordance with urban planning, such as theory, and the defendant actually committed a construction work such as packaging and sewerage, it cannot be said that the defendant opened the land of this case as a road and gains profits therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Da2086, Oct. 16, 1979; 77Da2003, May 9, 1978).

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the defendant did not use the land of this case as a road is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or lack of reasoning as the theory of lawsuit, and the case of the party members pointing out the theory of lawsuit is different from the case, and it is not appropriate in this case. All arguments are

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)