beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.01.26 2015가단223391

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) KRW 940,106 for each of them and 5% per annum from December 3, 2016 to January 26, 2017;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 3, 1979, C and Plaintiff B purchased 1/2 shares of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed each share transfer registration on December 6, 1979. The Plaintiff completed the share transfer registration on February 14, 2007 on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division.

B. The land of this case was originally classified as “the previous land” and its land category was changed on October 28, 1969 to “road”; among the land of this case, the part 165 square meters in part 165 square meters in the “B” connected each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 in sequence among the land of this case (hereinafter “instant dispute area”) was connected to neighboring D, E, F, and G land, and both of them were packed into a road. The boundary line was set up and used as a road for general traffic.

C. H road: H road was divided into 73 square meters in I on December 30, 1967; J road was divided into H on November 8, 1993; K road was divided into 55 square meters on December 30, 1967; E road was divided into 156 square meters on November 30, 1967; E road was divided into 154 square meters on November 8, 1993; G road was 248 square meters on November 11, 1969.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 13 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of obligation of return of unjust enrichment

A. According to the above facts, the defendant packages the dispute part of this case as a road and actually uses it for the general public's traffic.

As such, the defendant is obligated to return gains acquired from the occupation and use as unjust gains, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant used the dispute portion as a naturally formed road, and the original owner renounced his exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the dispute portion.

The plaintiffs are aware of such circumstances.