(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.12.14 2016가단31944

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) 대전지방법원 2017.12.14 2016가단31944

주위통행권확인 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 22, 2010 with respect to the land of the Dong-gu Daejeon-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”).

B. On October 29, 2014, the Defendant purchased the foregoing D site No. 210 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 29, 2014, sold each of the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to E on March 17, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 3-1, 2 and 5

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) obtained unjust enrichment of KRW 100,00 per annum by passing through the Plaintiff’s land for the purpose of owning and using the instant house; and (b) thus, (c) the Plaintiff is obligated to return KRW 300,000 in total for three years from October 29, 2014 to October 28, 2017.

B. Since the land of this case is blind, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant must necessarily pass through the private road installed on the land of this case for the purpose of coming to the housing of this case, but the fact that the defendant purchased on October 29, 2014 and sold on March 17, 2017 the land of this case and the housing of this case after the purchase on the land of this case was sold on March 29, 2017 is as seen earlier. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, according to the purport of the argument, it appears that the defendant could not reside in the above housing as he did not repair necessary due to the conflict with the plaintiff after the purchase of the housing of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the entries of subparagraphs 4-1 and 2 of subparagraph 4-1 have made a considerable amount of unjust enrichment by the defendant using the land of this case for the dwelling and use of the

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.05.25 2015가단26808

-서울북부지방법원 2018.02.08 2017가단114723

-창원지방법원마산지원 2019.07.18 2019가단100069

-대전지방법원논산지원 2019.01.10 2018가단2540

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.10.18 2017가단813