The case holding that if a local government occupies or uses a private land as a road, it may claim the return of unlawful gains on the part of deadline for the future due until the expiration of occupation due to the closure of the road or until the landowner loses ownership.

The case holding that if a local government occupies and uses a private land as a road, it may claim the return of unjust enrichment on the part of deadline due to the completion of occupation due to the closure of the road or until the landowner loses his ownership.

Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Daejeon District Court Decision 91Na4506 delivered on November 13, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant occupied, used, and succeeded to the rights and duties pertaining to the management of the above road since the incorporation of each of the instant lands into the road while implementing the road expansion project as stated in the judgment of the court below. In comparison with the records, the above recognition of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error such as the main text of the lawsuit. There is no reason to argue.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the defendant occupied and used the road of this case until the time of the closing of argument in this case and refused to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for it, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's obligation to continue and repeated performance as above is obviously foreseeable not to perform his obligation voluntarily even with respect to the expiration of the defendant's possession due to the closure of the road of this case or the expiration of the plaintiff's obligation due to the plaintiff's loss of ownership as to the road of this case, unless he performed the obligation. Therefore, the court below ordered the payment of the amount of money in proportion to 198,60 won per month from October 24, 191 to the closing of the defendant's road of this case or the time of the plaintiff's loss of ownership after the closing of argument in the court below's judgment. In light of the records, the above recognition judgment and its measures are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the future performance claim such as the tenant.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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.