(a) The case holding that if a part of the land in the dispute was incorporated into the disputing land while expanding the road at the market price, and the category of the land in the dispute was changed from the site to the road to the road and provided for the passage of residents and vehicles by means of the asphalt packing work, etc., the market price shall be deemed to be occupying and using the land in the dispute, and that the owner shall not interfere with the claim for return of unjust enrichment by acquiring it with

(b) Standards for calculating unjust enrichment where a person occupies another's land as a road without title;

A. The case holding that the land in dispute is in possession and use of the land in dispute at the market price on the ground that the land in dispute was actually offered for the passage of neighboring citizens and vehicles, and that the land in dispute at the market price cannot be a hindrance to the claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the land in dispute was actually offered for the passage of neighboring citizens and vehicles, or that the owner acquired the land in dispute at the market price after the fact that the land in dispute was occupied and used for the passage of neighboring citizens and vehicles after the land category of one parcel among the land in dispute was changed from the site to the road, and the land category of the land in question was changed from the site to the road.

(b) In the event that the city occupies another's land without title as a road without title, the rent for the land after deducting the development gains of the land shall be calculated as the amount of unjust enrichment; and as in the case of private roads provided for in Article 6-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Use and Compensation of Losses Act, it is not necessary to seek the estimated market price within the limit of one fifth of the normal market price of the neighboring land,

a.B.Article 741(a) of the Civil Code; Article 192(b) of the Civil Code; Article 6bis of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da5528 delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong1991,581), 90Da5795 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong1991,1164), 91Da17139 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong1991,2685) B. Supreme Court Decision 87Da2477 delivered on February 23, 198 (Gong198,590) (Gong198,590), 90Da19251 delivered on March 12, 1991

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na57016 delivered on May 12, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts: (a) in the past, the roads as indicated in the judgment based on macrofics were in the state of 3 meters wide-scale unfluent farming, which was at least 6 meters wide-distance, but the roads were expanded to 6 meters wide-area or more, and the Defendant expanded the roads in 1980 to 1980; (b) the land was incorporated into the land of this case (Seoul Songpa-gu ( Address 1 omitted); and (c) on April 30, 1980, the land category of the land of this case was changed from the site of this case to the road; and (d) the Defendant provided the land of this case to a large number of unspecified citizens, including neighboring residents, as delivery of the land and the roadway, and thereafter, from that point of time, from that point of time, the Defendant provided the land of this case to the road of this case to a large number of unspecified citizens, such as neighboring residents, the court below determined that the land of this case was occupied and occupied.

If the land was incorporated into the road as recognized by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case has been renounced from the beginning. Accordingly, the lower court is correct in its purport, and even if the Plaintiff acquired it with knowledge of the utilization relationship of the land of this case, such circumstance alone does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

The court below ordered the return of the rent for the land after deducting the development gains of the land of this case to the defendant by calculating the amount of unjust enrichment. The records are justified, and it does not change due to the fact that the land was actually offered for the passage in the vicinity or that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case after the point of possession and use by the defendant. Further, it does not require the calculation of the amount of damages equivalent to the rent for the use of the land of this case based on the presumption price within 1/5 of the normal market price of neighboring land, such as private roads provided for in Article 6-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition and Loss of Land for Public Use and Private Use.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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 Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)