사무관리비상환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant: (a) granted C approval for the use of each agricultural infrastructure on April 21, 2015; (b) May 7, 2015; and (c) June 8, 2015, for the use of each agricultural infrastructure other than each agricultural infrastructure on the following grounds: < Amended by Act No. 13282, Jun. 8, 2015>
B. The Plaintiff voluntarily restored the instant land to its original state on May 28, 2015, as a person who resides near the instant land.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The gist and determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff, as a resident near the instant land, was obligated to pay the said money and damages for delay to the Plaintiff due to the reimbursement of expenses incurred in managing the affairs, since the Plaintiff was urgently restored the instant land by bringing KRW 1,50,00 on behalf of the Defendant in order to advance the funeral period and secure drainage channels.
To establish the office management, first of all, it is required that the office work is another person's business and there is an intention to vest the actual interest in the management for another person, and furthermore, it is not clear that the process of the office is disadvantageous to the principal or against his will.
However, in light of the fact that, in principle, a private person cannot perform the state's affairs without legal basis, when considering the fact that a private person's affairs are the state's affairs, a private person can perform the state's affairs on behalf of the State, and only when the private person's involvement in the state's affairs such as urgency in dealing with the affairs is justified, a private person can file a claim for reimbursement of necessary or beneficial expenses incurred in performing the state's affairs to the extent that the private
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da15602, Dec. 11, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff’s health unit and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is alone the Defendant.