Ownership of land is deemed to be a road built by the determination of an urban planning under the Urban Planning Act pursuant to paragraph (2) of the Addenda to the Urban Planning Act.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, even if a road constructed by a local government is considered to be a road according to the urban planning decision at the time of March 21, 1973, it is merely deemed lawful and does not belong to the land ownership.

Paragraph 2 of Addenda to the Urban Planning Act, Paragraph 2 of Addenda to the Enforcement Decree

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-at-law

Attorney Park Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na249 delivered on April 8, 1976

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) As to the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant, without acquiring the land ownership or other rights under the Urban Planning Act or other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, made the land ownership or other rights more than three times between April 1962 to May 1967 as de facto roads such as the sidewalk package on the land of this case and offered them to the general public and used as roads until now. In comparison with the records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to road use such as theory in the process of fact-finding, nor in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the process of fact-finding,

(2) As to ground of appeal No. 2

Even if this land is designated as a prospective road site and cannot be leased as another site due to the prohibition of a building permit on the ground, the owner of the land can expect profits equivalent to the rent, so long as the court below could have obtained profits from the rent due to the method other than the lease for the purpose of construction, the defendant did not use the land in this case as a road without a legitimate title, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the rent, and thereby causing damages to the plaintiffs, the owner of the land. Therefore, there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unjust enrichment, such as the theory of lawsuit.

(3) As to the third ground for appeal:

The appraisal in the civil procedure is not included in the prescribed appraisal in the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal Act, and it is groundless.

(4) As to the grounds of supplementary appeal:

Even if the land in question is considered to be a road constructed by the defendant market, which is a local government, according to the urban planning decision under the Urban Planning Act, at the time of March 21, 1973, as the Addenda (C. 21, 1972) Paragraph (2) of the Addenda (C. 21, 1973) of the Addenda (C. 1972) Paragraph (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Small Urban Planning Act, it is merely deemed to be a road constructed by the defendant market, which is a local government, according to the urban planning decision under the Urban Planning Act, the decision on the road in question is lawful and the "road construction" is lawful, and land expropriation under the Urban Planning Act takes procedures such as compensation for losses and land expropriation takes place, so the purpose of the restriction is to ensure that the land ownership is transferred to March 2

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)