logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.25 2017나2617
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part against the plaintiffs, which orders payment under the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The following facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be admitted in the entry (including each number) in Gap evidence 1 to 7, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings:

On November 13, 1963, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on April 6, 1960 in the name of G, which is the father or the father of the plaintiffs, on November 13, 1963 with respect to the FF railroad site 1,610 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case").

G died on or around March 4, 1967. With respect to one-fifth share of each of the instant lands, the registration of transfer of each share ownership was completed on August 20, 208 in the name of the Plaintiffs, who are co-inheritors of the network G, due to a consultation division.

B. On the other hand, on June 30, 1961, the defendant opened J-I to the part of 26.5 km between H-I including the land of this case, and continued to occupy and use the land of this case as a railroad site from that time.

C. On November 18, 2009, Plaintiffs B, C, D, and E filed a lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment by asserting that the Defendant occupied and used the instant land as a railroad site without any legal cause, obtained a reasonable profit, and incurred property damage equivalent to the same amount to the said Plaintiffs. (2) The appellate court of the instant case (Seoul East District Court 2010Na10421) was the appellate court (Seoul East District Court 2010Na10421) and the land of this case, as the instant land, is a State-owned administrative property devolved from the military administration and the Defendant under Article 1 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States, and thus, even if such land was actually used for farming at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act, such state-owned farmland is subject to inspection and transfer from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry only with the land that is not required for public or public purposes under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

arrow