logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.04.23 2017가단105507
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 27, 1985 with respect to the land of 168 square meters prior to Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”), and C died on November 15, 1987, and the Plaintiff solely inherited the instant land.

B. The land category of the instant land was changed from November 23, 1993 to “road” and is used as a passage of many and unspecified persons, including neighboring residents.

C. Of the instant land, one part of 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 6, and 1 of the attached drawings are packaged as asphalt in order to connect each point.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 11, and Eul evidence No. 1 through 4, the result of this court's request for surveying and appraisal to the North Vice Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the Plaintiff’s assertion was created adjacent to the instant land and contributed to the creation of a meritorious deed, the instant land was also incorporated into a meritorious deed. In around 1993, the Defendant occupied and managed the instant land by packaging asphalt on the land adjacent to the instant land.

Therefore, the sum from January 5, 2012 to December 31, 2017 and the amount equivalent to the rent after January 1, 2018 are obligated to return the portion occupied by the Defendant, as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The defendant's assertion does not occupy the land of this case, but has already been used as a passage for neighboring residents in the form of road prior to the acquisition of ownership by the network C, and D, the original owner, was used as a passage to secure the utility value of the land of this case and divided the land into three lots in order to secure the utility value of the land of this case, and thus, the plaintiff did not incur any damage and the defendant did not gain any profit.

3. The State or a local government.

arrow