Recognition of Routes and District Determination of Private Land as prescribed by the Road Act, and the denial of a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

Since the recognition of the routes prescribed by the Road Act and the exercise of private rights is prohibited with respect to the site constituting the road on which the district decision is made, the claim for return of unjust enrichment cannot be made.

Article 5 of the Road Act

Man-gu

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul District Court of First Instance (69A12131)

Supreme Court Decision 71Da9 delivered on July 27, 1971

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount of KRW 6,350,167 and KRW 4,695,167 from November 1, 1969 to KRW 1,655,00 with an annual rate of 5% from January 1, 1970 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The plaintiff shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,581,122 won with 5% interest per annum from November 1, 1969 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

The defendant is delivered with the judgment of the court below.

In full view of the facts that the plaintiff owned by Yongsan-gu, Seoul, 90-3 and 165-5 Hobbebbes (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case"), there is no dispute between the parties, and the testimony of the witness of the court below was adjoining to the existing roads where the first Han River is located north of the Seoul Station, and the building was constructed on these roads, but the building was destroyed at the time of June 25, 1953 at the time of the accident, and the construction of the above existing road was destroyed and left for the extension of the road, it can be recognized that the land of this case was put into the site of the road, and thereafter it was provided for the passage of the human body, and there is no difference in the above recognition.

Since the Plaintiff, without any title, occupied and used the instant land by incorporating it into the road site as above, the Plaintiff was unable to make his profit, the Defendant Si obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to his fee, and the Plaintiff sought the return of the same amount equivalent to his fee from April 1, 1959 to December 31, 1969, and accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sought the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to his fee. Thus, the instant land is a scambed official document, and as such, considering the fact-finding inquiry, response results, and the whole purport of the oral argument in the statement of No. 1 evidence No. 1 (Public Notice) presumed to have been established, this case’s land shall be deemed as the road square, which constitutes the Seoul city planning as part of the Seoul Urban Planning Plan, which constitutes part of the Seoul City Planning Plan, No. 400 meters wide, 400 meters wide, 1960 meters wide, 470 meters wide, 196 meters wide, 470 meters wide, 196 meters wide from the road site (No. 297.

Therefore, it is clear that the land is a site that constitutes a road under the Road Act where the good faith and the decision of the zone is made (the recognition of lines and other dispositions or procedures conducted by the Joseon Road Order pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda of the Road Act), and according to Article 5 of the Road Act, the exercise of private rights against a site constituting a road is prohibited. Therefore, the claim for compensation for losses through the procedure under Article 79 of the Road Act is a pleading, and the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment of this case on the premise that the exercise of private rights is possible is no longer necessary to further determine the remaining points.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in the principal lawsuit is unfair, and it is unfair to dismiss it. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, so the part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked, the plaintiff's claim and appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)