토지 점유에 따른 장래의 부당이득반환청구의 訴의 訴益 - 관련 판례를 중심으로-

As the court strictly decides the legitimacy of the expiration of future action in a suit of return claim against future injustice profits caused by land occupation, as the plaintiff argues, the court does not properly protect the creditor's right because it forces the creditor to sue multiple times within a time limit for the return claim and it results in increasing the expense of suit and getting the procedures complicated. Therefore, it is necessary to allow flexibility in deciding the future lawsuit qualification. The court should not turn down the lawsuit by denying the lawsuit qualification for plaintiff due to the improper expiration period. The court rather should flexibly decide by executing the right of explanation to balance the gains of the plaintiff and the burden on the defendant by considering the cost of claim, the condition and the title of road occupation, and the law related knowledge of the parties with a view to the blance of interest of related parties.