beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. indicated on the attached sheet No. 3, 4, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7. The attached sheet No. 3, 4, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On the grounds of donation on December 24, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the Ulsan-gun C, Ulsan-gun, 466 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. Of the instant land, there are asphalt roads up to the entrances of D Hot Springs operated by Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hot Spring Co., Ltd.”) on the ground of the attached Table 3, 4, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, and 3 square meters on the part of “B” (hereinafter “instant road”) connected with each point of the attached Table 3, 4, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, and 3, and there are gas supply facilities, such as urban gas pipes installed around 206 by Defendant Dongdong Urban Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Gas Co., Ltd.”).
C. The sum of rent from July 1, 2004 to March 3, 2015 on the ground of the instant road is KRW 8,731,584, and rent is KRW 90,396 per month on March 2015. The sum of rent from January 1, 2012 to March 3, 2015 on the ground of the instant road is KRW 804,82, and rent is KRW 23,62 per month on March 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, result of field inspection, result of survey and commission of free evaluation of rent, purport of whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. without any source of possessory right as to the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant Hot Spring Company used the instant road as the access road to D Hot Springs by packaging the part of the instant road in the asphalt. Therefore, the Plaintiff must remove the asphalt and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. Since the Defendant Gas Company installs gas supply facilities under its underground, it is obliged to remove the facility and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.
B. The defendant hot spring company's possession of the defendant hot spring company asserts that the road portion of this case naturally occurred, and the road used by residents and the general public is a road used by the government Saemaul project, and that the defendant hot spring company does not exclusively occupy and use it.
Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, evidence Nos. 4-1 to 4, A, 5, 6, 7, 10.