beta
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2015.01.27 2014가단4650

토지인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 2,260,392 and 5% per annum from May 2, 2014 to January 27, 2015; and

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant without any title has occupied and used each land listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached list Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter "the land of this case") as a road site, and each land listed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the same list (hereinafter "the land of this case") as a river area. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant sought unjust enrichment from the delivery of each land of this case and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 1, 204.

2. Claim for the delivery of the instant Nos. 1 and 2 and return of unjust enrichment

(a)The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3, and 6, as a whole, together with the purport of the entire pleadings.

1) At the time of December 25, 1964, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land Nos. 1 and 2, the land category of which was “B”. 2) After that, the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 was changed to a “road” as of December 26, 1981 due to the extension and packing of the mountain-si, Yan-si, the Defendant’s Intervenor, which was implemented around November 20, 1981, the land category of December 26, 1981, as of December 26, 1981, was changed to a “road” as of the present, and was offered for public passage from the date when the said land category was changed to a “road,” and the said land was partially part of 1021 lines of local highway approved as of November 20, 195 by the Road Act, which was in force as of November 20, 195.

3) Meanwhile, from the time when the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was incorporated into the site of the mountain village, the Defendant occupied and used the instant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the instant land by being delegated by the Defendant’s Intervenor pursuant to the Delegation Ordinance for Administrative Affairs by the Defendant. (B) As such, Article 4 of the Road Act provides that the right of access can not be exercised for the land, retaining wall and other facilities constituting the road, the procedure for recognition of routes, etc. under the Road Act.