[1] Where a parcel of land was designated as a reserved land for replotting for several parcels of land whose owner had different ownership, the relationship between the right to use and benefit from the land as reserved land belongs (=construction right)

[2] In a case where a specific land among the previous several parcels of land is designated as a part of the reserved land for replotting, whether the owner of the specific parcel of land can exclusively occupy and use the reserved land corresponding to that part (negative), and the method of determining how the completion of the right to use and benefit from the reserved land is to use and benefit from the reserved land (=a majority of the shares)

[1] Article 57 of the former Land Readjustment Project Act (repealed by Act No. 6252 of Jan. 28, 200) (see current Article 36 of the Urban Development Act), Article 54 (2) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (repealed by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002) (see current Article 43 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents), Articles 263, 265, and 278 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 57 of the former Land Readjustment Project Act (repealed by Act No. 6252 of Jan. 28, 200) (see current Article 36 of the Urban Development Act), Article 54 (2) and (2) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (Abolition by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 200 and Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 77Da349 delivered on August 23, 1977, Supreme Court Decision 77Da2299 delivered on June 27, 197 (Gong1978, 1096) decided September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2590) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da5983 delivered on May 28, 1991, Supreme Court Decision 88Da3855 delivered on September 24, 1991

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Doh-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 2 and two others

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Na24582, 24599 Decided October 7, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 are assessed against each party, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by Defendant 1’s attorney).

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal against Defendant 1

가. 원심판결 이유를 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이 그 판시와 같은 이유를 들어 피고 1이 원심판결 별지 제1도면 표시 2, ㅍ, ㅁ, ㅅ, ㅈ, ㅇ, 2의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 ‘사’, ‘아’ 부분 합계 20.2㎡를 점유·사용하고 있다는 원고의 주장을 배척한 것은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유의 주장과 같이 논리와 경험의 법칙을 위반하고 자유심증주의의 한계를 벗어나거나 필요한 심리를 다하지 아니하는 등의 위법이 없다.

B. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the removal of the building and the part of the claim for delivery of the land, but the petition of appeal and the appellate brief did not indicate the grounds of appeal as to this.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s remaining Defendants’ appeal

The plaintiff also filed an appeal against the remaining Defendants, but the petition of appeal and the appellate brief did not indicate the grounds of appeal as to them.

3. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

A. Where a parcel of land has been legally designated as a reserved land for replotting for several parcels of land, the owner of the previous parcel of land has the right to use and benefit from the previous parcel of land in the form of completion oil according to the ratio corresponding to the previous parcel of land unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 77Da349, Aug. 23, 197; 88Meu33855, Sept. 24, 1991). The provisions of the Civil Act concerning the right to use and benefit as above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the above right to use and benefit.

Therefore, the owner of a specific parcel out of several previous parcels of land cannot occupy and use the land as a part of the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the planned land substitution, and to determine the specific method to use and profit from the land as the quasi-owner among the persons who completed the right to use and profit from the land as the land as the planned land substitution, which is the common property, should be determined by a majority of the share of the right to use and profit from the land as the quasi-owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da5983, May 28, 1991; 8Da3855, Sept. 24, 191).

B. After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court found the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that Defendant 1 was obligated to return to the Plaintiff the benefits equivalent to the rent gained by exclusively occupying and using the site of the instant building, and further rejected Defendant 1’s assertion that the Plaintiff approved the Plaintiff’s use of part of the land reserved for replotting of the instant building as the site of the instant building, or that the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment contradicts

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the right to benefit from sharing and using reserved land as well as the unjust enrichment and the principle of good faith, or by exceeding the bounds of

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)