(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.04.25 2013가단5889

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.04.25 2013가단5889

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a)payment of 6,398,320 won;

B. From January 5, 2014 to Kimhae-si B, 592 square meters.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Since December 13, 1929, the “instant land” owned by the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) who is the father of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the deceased”).

After the Deceased died on January 26, 1945, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 19, 201 with respect to the land of this case on January 26, 1945.

B. On November 18, 1939, the land of this case was divided into E, E, 512 square meters, F, 671 square meters, and the land of this case. The land of this case was changed to the road category on the same day.

C. The Defendant, around 2002, designated a road including the instant land as a “rido 203” road and occupied and used the instant land as a road.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 3 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the occurrence of unjust enrichment from return obligation

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendant, from around 2002, obtained profits from the possession and use of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff without any legal ground, and thereby inflicted damages on the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent arising from the possession and use of the instant land to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Deceased’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion granting permission to occupy and use the instant land as a road for the passage of the general public. As such, even if the instant land is used as a road, the Plaintiff cannot seek a return of unjust enrichment on the ground that no loss can be incurred to the Plaintiff. 2) The judgment of the Defendant’s assertion is either naturally occurring or as a planned road area, and is actually being used as a road for the general public’s traffic.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.03.19 2014나31657

-창원지방법원진주지원 2015.12.24 2014가단9256

-서울남부지방법원 2016.01.20 2015가단210396

-창원지방법원 2013.12.20 2012가단77276

-창원지방법원 2015.07.02 2014나30180