logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.08.18 2016다4181
부당이득반환
Text

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the "amount of the prize" in the attached Form 5 of the judgment of the court below shall be stated.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the calculation of site costs, the court shall determine whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of social justice and the principle of equity by free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The facts duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the judgment below did not exceed the bounds of

(1) On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) deemed that the total project area is 832,794 square meters, and the area of a road corresponding to the basic living facilities is 159,122.4 square meters; and (b) determined that the Defendant does not exclude the road area reverted to the Defendant without compensation; and (b) determined that in light of the circumstances recognized by the BE district land use plan (No. 9-2) and the calculation details of basic living facilities (No. 9-3 and No. 16) of the basic living facilities in BE district, etc., the lower court determined that it is insufficient to recognize the retention area of 14,775 square meters, as alleged by the Defendant, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the road site cost should be calculated except for this.

The ground of appeal is the purport of disputing the fact-finding, which is the basis of the judgment of the court below, and is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the judgment on the value of evidence.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the calculation of cost of installing basic living facilities, the area to be retained and retained, and the calculation of cost of site for basic living facilities, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of

arrow