beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.11.25 2016가단54321

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) 526,540 won and for this, 5% per annum from October 30, 2016 to November 25, 2016.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff was donated on May 8, 1974 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 12, 1981. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 8, 1947 by inheritance from Australia on November 8, 1947. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 14870, Feb. 8, 1995>

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) is occupied by the Defendant and used as a road.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute Gap's 1, 2-3, and 4; the purport of the whole pleadings

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as an occupant of each of the instant real estate, is obligated to return profits from the possession and use of each of the instant real estate as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, the owner of each of the instant real estate, from January 1, 2011 to the expiration date of the Defendant’s possession of the instant land or the date of the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership, as the result of the acquisition date of ownership, to the Plaintiff, who is the owner

In light of the above evidence and the whole argument, since the acquisition by prescription by possession of each of the real estate in this case was completed by the defendant's intention for 20 years, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, if a local government initiates the procedure for acquiring public property under the Local Finance Act, etc., such as his own share or donation, or incorporates a private land into a road site without a title that can occupy the land by obtaining the owner's consent to use, it shall be deemed that the presumption of autonomous possession is broken (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da64472, Mar. 27, 2001). In full view of the above evidence and the purport of the whole argument, it can be acknowledged that the defendant, a local government, incorporated the land in this case into a road site without undergoing the procedure for acquiring public property or obtaining the owner's consent to use. Thus, from the time of incorporation into the road as claimed by the defendant.