Plaintiff (Law Firm Han-ro, Attorneys Yang Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju City Mayor and two others (Attorney Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

on March 24, 2005

Suwon District Court Decision 2003Kadan15128 delivered on June 1, 2004

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which is followed, shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff:

(1) Defendant 2: (a) land on the part of 126 square meters per place part on the ship, which connects each point of the attached Form 31, 68, 67, 66, 65, 41, 42, and 31 square meters among the 631 square meters of land on the ground forest land in Gwangju-si (detailed number omitted); (b)

(2) 피고 3은 같은 리 (지번 생략) 지상 임야 4,568㎡ 중 별지 도면 표시 1, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㉳ 부분 831㎡의 토지를

India, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff:

(1) From July 2, 2003 to August 2, 2003; from 22,251 to 22,251 won, 5% per annum from September 2, 2003 to May 12, 2005; 20% per annum from September 2, 200 to 36, from September 2, 2003 to 36, from September 2, 2003 to 36, from September 7, 2003 to 36, from September 2, 207, from 36, from 36, 76, 76, 36, 76, 76, 74, 76, 76, 76, 76, 36, 76, 76, 768, 256, 57, 56, 60, 61, 256, 21, 27, 366, 25,

(2) As to Defendant 2’s rent for the portion in possession of Defendant 2 as to the respective periods indicated in Table 1,223,250 and Table 2 attached hereto, the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from the date following the end of each corresponding period to May 12, 2005; the amount calculated by applying 20% per annum from September 2, 2003 to the day of full payment; and the amount calculated by applying 41,845 won per month from September 2, 2003 to the day on which Defendant 2’s possession of the land listed in Section 1 is terminated;

(3) As to the rent for the portion of Defendant 3 possession with respect to the respective periods set forth in attached Table 2, Defendant 3’s 5% per annum from the date following the end of each corresponding period until May 12, 2005; from September 2, 2003 to the day of full payment; from September 2, 2003 to the day of full payment; and from September 2, 2003 to the day of the expiration of possession of the land set forth in attached Table 3 to the day of the Plaintiff’s 275,891 won per month;

sub-payment.

2. Each of the remaining appeals by the Plaintiff is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 Gwangju City shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant 1 Gwangju City, respectively, and the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 by the Defendant 2 and Defendant 3.

4. The above paragraph 1-2 (b) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

(a) the removal and the request for extradition;

(1) 피고 1 광주시는 피고의 비용으로 원고에게, 광주시 (상세 지번 생략) 지상 임야 4,568㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 (지번 생략) 토지’라고 한다) 중 별지 도면 표시 21, 22, 23, 55, 56, 57, 58, 16, 59, 60, 61, 21의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㉰ 부분 256㎡, 같은 도면 표시 62, 85, 23, 24, 62의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㉱ 부분 33㎡, 같은 도면 표시 76, 2, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 25, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㉲ 부분 677㎡와 같은 리 (지번 생략) 지상 임야 631㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 (지번 생략) 토지’라고 한다) 중 별지 도면 표시 68, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㉯ 부분 215㎡의 각 토지(이하 위 ㉰㉱㉲㉯ 부분을 합하여 ‘ 피고 1 광주시 점유부분’이라고 한다) 지상에 시공한 콘크리트 및 아스팔트 포장을 철거하고 위 각 토지를 인도하라.

(2) Disposition No. 1-A. (1) and (2)

B. Part on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

(1) Defendant 1:

(A) 722,500 won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the end of each corresponding period to the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case with respect to the period under the conditions set forth in Table 1 of double Table 1; and

(B) From September 2, 2003 to September 2, 2003, Defendant 1 paid the amount at the rate of 22,300 won per month from September 2, 200 to the date of completion of occupation or the date of loss of Plaintiff’s ownership.

(2) Defendant 2:

(A) 5% per annum from the date following the end of each corresponding period to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case with respect to Defendant 2’s rents for the respective periods specified in Table 2, including KRW 1,223,250, and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

(B) From September 2, 2003 to September 2, 2003, the amount of money in proportion to 41,850 won per month shall be paid, respectively, from September 2, 2003 to the expiration date of occupation by Defendant 2 or the date of Plaintiff’s loss of ownership.

(3) Defendant 3:

(A) 5% per annum from the date following the end of each corresponding period to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case with respect to Defendant 3 possession charge for each period set forth in the 3,364,000 won and double attached Table 2, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

(B) From September 2, 2003 to September 2, 2003, the amount of money in proportion to KRW 276,000 per month shall be paid, respectively, from September 2, 2003 to the expiration date of occupation by Defendant 3 or the date of Plaintiff’s loss of ownership.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants, the part against the Plaintiff shall be revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since November 23, 1979, each land of this case (number omitted) was owned by the deceased non-party 1. The deceased died on May 7, 1997, the registration of ownership transfer (No. 42017 of receipt on August 29, 1997) was made in the name of Non-party 2, the wife of the deceased on the ground of the inheritance by agreement division, and again the registration of ownership transfer (No. 48424 of receipt on September 22, 2000) was made in the name of the plaintiff who was the grandchildren of non-party 2 on the ground of donation on September 20, 200.

B. As to the portion of Defendant 1’s possession of Gwangju City, around July 2, 1986, Defendant 1 Gwangju City, at the expense of Defendant 1 Gwangju City, performed concrete and asphalt expansion and packing construction at the expense of Defendant 1 Gwangju City, thereby allowing them to be used by the general public as part of the 202 lines, which are rural roads, by performing concrete and asphalt expansion and packing construction at the expense of Defendant 1 Gwangju City.

C. As to the portion of 126 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “Defendant 2 possession portion”) connected with each point of the attached Table 31, 68, 67, 66, 65, 41, 42, and 31 among the land of this case (number omitted), Defendant 2’s wife Nonparty 3 acquired 5,408 square meters in the same Ri (number omitted) adjacent to the land of this case around August 200, and Defendant 2 actually operated (trade name omitted) after having registered the business in the name of Nonparty 3 under the name of “(trade name omitted).” Defendant 2 obtained permission to occupy and use the road from Defendant 1 Gwangju City on October 31, 200 with the permission to occupy and use the land of this case.

라. 이 사건 (지번 생략) 중 별지 도면 표시 1, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㉳ 부분 831㎡(이하 ‘피고 3 점유부분’이라고 한다)에 관하여, 피고 3은 2002. 7.경 이 사건 (지번 생략)에 인접한 같은 리 (지번 생략)을 매수한 후, 2002. 7. 25. ‘ (상호 생략)’ 공장신설승인을 받고 그 무렵부터 피고 1 광주시로부터 국유재산사용수익허가를 얻어 피고 3 점유부분을 점유, 사용하고 있다.

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul's evidence Nos. 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), the result of the on-site verification conducted by the court of first instance, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser's office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant 1’s portion of possession

(1) Determination as to the removal of concrete, etc. and the claim for land delivery

Since the Plaintiff sought removal of the above occupied portion and delivery of the above occupied portion by Defendant 1 on the ground of his illegal possession of the Plaintiff Gwangju City, the Plaintiff agreed to use the above occupied portion as a road on April 3 of the same year by the deceased non-party 1 at the time of the defect in the implementation of the Saemaul Agricultural Village Expansion Project around 1986. Nonparty 1 consented to use the above occupied portion as a road without any condition such as the cost and period of use as above. Defendant 1 was able to implement the above project pursuant to the above consent, and the above occupied portion was able to be used as part of the general public in agricultural and fishing villages by expanding the above occupied portion and packing, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of the occupied portion as part of the above occupied portion without any inconvenience to the Plaintiff at the time of the above occupancy. The Plaintiff’s claim for removal of the occupied portion as part of the above occupied portion without any inconvenience to the Plaintiff’s use of the above occupied portion by the residents of Gwangju City as part of the above occupied portion and its neighboring owner’s right to use.

(2) Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

(A) According to the above facts, Defendant 1 has the duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the Plaintiff’s occupation and use fees during the period of use, as Defendant 1 has occupied and used Defendant 1 Gwangju City without title. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant 1 has the duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the Plaintiff’s occupation and use fees

(B) As to this, Defendant 1 asserted that, around 1987, Gangnam-gu Special Construction Co., Ltd. purchased 23 lots of land in Gwangju Special Metropolitan City (including the above occupation portion omitted) from Nonparty 1, etc. for the purpose of securing a transportation road for the development of tin mountain, and used them as a road, and Defendant 1 has a legitimate right to possess the above occupation portion in relation to the Plaintiff, who is Nonparty 1’s heir.

In full view of the statements in Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, and witness's testimony, the evidence obtained permission to collect earth and stones from Jung-si (detailed address omitted) from Gangnam-gu Construction Co., Ltd. around 1987, and on August 29, 1987, including the land in this case, on the ground that the non-tax revenue fraternity of defendant Gwangju-si (detailed name omitted) 23 lots were donated from non-party 4 and 10, the owner of the land in this case requested the Mayor of Gwangju-si for the application for the issuance of land cadastre for the adjustment of the register for the adjustment of the register. At that time, the (number omitted) land in this case was partitioned from the same Ri (number omitted) where the land in this case was gathered and registered on June 30, 198, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above land was ratified from Jung-gu Construction Co., Ltd.

(C) In addition, in the process of implementing the Saemaul Agricultural Village Expansion Project, Defendant 1 agreed to use the above occupied portion as a road. Accordingly, Defendant 1’s market implementation of the above project and use the above occupied portion as a passage for neighboring residents. As such, Nonparty 1 renounced his right to use and profit from it or expressed his intention of free use to Defendant 1 Gwangju City, so Defendant 1’s market is justified in using the above occupied portion.

In light of the above facts, the non-party 1, who was the owner of the above occupied part, voluntarily consented to the use of the above occupied part as the road. Accordingly, the fact that the defendant 1 implemented the above project and allowed him to use the above occupied part as the road. According to each of the above evidence, it is acknowledged that the non-party 1 or his successor did not request the defendant 1 to pay the land usage fee before the lawsuit of this case was brought. The non-party 1 or other landowners included in the Saemaeul road also agreed to use the land as the non-party 1 and did not request the payment of compensation or land usage fee. Thus, it is difficult to view the above facts alone that the non-party 1 did not have given the right to exclusive use and use the above occupied part and permanently renounced portion, but it is difficult to view that the non-party 1 had the defendant 1 expressed his intention not to use the above occupied part within the period of no more than 10 days from the day after delivery of the complaint of this case to the non-party 1, the plaintiff's expression of intention of unjust enrichment and the above part.

(라) 나아가 피고 1 광주시가 반환해야 할 부당이득의 범위에 관하여 보건대, 감정인 김명철의 임료감정결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 (지번 생략) 토지 중피고들 및 제1심 공동피고인의 각 점유부분과 별지 도면 표시 ㉷ 부분 토지 255㎡ 및 이 사건 (지번 생략) 토지의 각 면적을 합한 2,813㎡의 2003. 6. 2.부터의 월 실질 임료는 53,000원인 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 그 이후의 임료도 같은 액수일 것으로 추인되므로, 피고 1 광주시는 원고에게, 이 사건 소장 부본이 송달된 다음날이 기록상 명백한 2003. 6. 26.부터 같은 해 7. 1.까지의 임료로서 4,450원(=53,000원×6/30월×1,181㎡/2,813㎡, 원 미만 버림, 이하 같다), 같은 해 7. 2.부터 같은 해 8. 1.까지와 같은 해 8. 2.부터 같은 해 9. 1. 까지의 각 기간 동안의 임료로서 각 22,251원(=53,000원×1,181㎡/2,813㎡) 합계 48,952원 및 위 각 금원에 대하여 각 해당 기간 종료일 다음날부터 피고 1 광주시가 그 이행의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 당심 판결 선고일인 2005. 5. 12.까지는 민법에서 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진에관한특례법에서 정한 연 20%의 각 비율에 의한 지연손해금과 같은 해 9. 2.부터 피고 1 광주시 점유부분에 대한 피고 1 광주시의 점유종료일 또는 원고의 소유권상실일까지 임료로서 매월 22,251원(=53,000원×1,181㎡/2,813㎡)의 비율에 의한 금원을 지급할 의무가 있다.

B. Determination as to each part of the possession of Defendant 2 and 3

(1) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, Defendant 2 and 3 have the duty to deliver each of the above possession portion to the Plaintiff as the owner, unless there are special circumstances such as the Plaintiff has the right to possess and use, and have the duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the period of possession and use.

(2) As to this, the above defendants' assertion as alleged in Article 2-2 (a) (2) (b) is without merit. However, on the grounds as seen above, the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

(3) In addition, the above Defendants asserted as alleged in Section 2-A (2) (c) of Article 2, but according to the facts acknowledged above, it is reasonable to view that at the time, Nonparty 1 consented to the use of only the portion necessary for the use of the land as a road among the land (each lot number omitted) of this case. Since the occupied portion of Defendant 2 and 3 is not used as a road, it cannot be said that Nonparty 1 consented to the use of the occupied portion, and there is no room to deem that the Plaintiff renounced the right to use and benefit from the occupied portion which is not actually used as a road. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(4) 나아가 위 피고들이 반환해야 할 부당이득의 범위에 관하여 보건대, 감정인 김명철의 임료감정결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 (지번 생략) 각 토지 중 도로로 편입되지 아니한 피고 2, 3, 제1심 공동피고인의 각 점유부분과 별지 도면 표시 ㉷ 부분 토지 255㎡의 각 면적을 합한 1,632㎡의 편입 당시 현황인 잡종지 및 공장용지로서의 월 실질 임료는 542,000원인 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 그 이후의 임료도 같은 액수일 것으로 추인되므로 별표 2와 같이 계산하여, 원고에게, 피고 2는 2000. 10. 31.부터 2003. 9. 1.까지의 임료로서 1,223,250원 및 이중 별표 2 기재 각 기간에 관한 피고 2 점유부분 임대료에 대하여 각 해당 기간 종료일 다음날부터 위 피고가 그 이행의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 당심 판결 선고일인 2005. 5. 12.까지는 민법에서 정한 연 5%, 각 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진에관한특례법에서 정한 연 20%의 각 비율에 의한 지연손해금과 2003. 9. 2.부터 피고 2 점유부분에 대한 위 피고의 점유종료일 또는 원고의 소유권상실일까지 임료로서 매월 41,845원(=542,000원×126㎡/1,632㎡)의 비율에 의한 금원을, 피고 3은 2002. 7. 25.부터 2003. 9. 1.까지의 임료로서 3,364,000원 및 이중 별표 2 기재 각 기간에 관한 피고 3 점유부분 임대료에 대하여 각 해당 기간 종료일 다음날부터 위 피고가 그 이행의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 당심 판결 선고일인 2005. 5. 12.까지는 민법에서 정한 연 5%, 각 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진에관한특례법에서 정한 연 20%의 각 비율에 의한 지연손해금과 2003. 9. 2.부터 피고 3 점유부분에 대한 위 피고의 점유종료일 또는 원고의 소유권상실일까지 임료로서 매월 275,891원(=542,000원×831㎡/1,632㎡)의 비율에 의한 금원을 각 지급할 의무가 있다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims against the defendants of this case against the plaintiff is justified within the scope of each recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. Since the part against the plaintiff falling under the above recognition scope of the judgment of the court of first instance, which has partially different conclusions, is unfair, the part against the plaintiff falling under the above recognition scope of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the defendants shall be ordered to perform their obligations within the above recognition scope, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed as

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Jung-nam