logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.08.08 2017나210571
토지인도 등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Judgment of the court of first instance No. 1-B.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 29, 1970, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the entire land H and J (hereinafter referred to as “land display”) from the H and J (the lot number alone). Around that time, the location and nature of the said land and its neighboring land are as shown in attached Form 4.

B. Around September 2, 1971, the Plaintiff filed an application for subdivision of H and J land, and around that time, H land was divided into H, K, B, C, and J land into J, D, L, M, E, N,O, P, Q, R, S, and T land, respectively.

C. Meanwhile, from around 1970 to around 1972, neighboring land was divided, and a road in the shape of a shot, such as the annexed drawing Nos. 5 was formed. Of the land owned by the Plaintiff, the land B, C, D, and E was included in the above shot-shaped road.

From around 1970, the Defendant connected each point of B, C, D, and E with each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 1 with respect to land B and C in sequence from around 1970, such as the installation of sewage pipes, etc., to the present day, the Defendant connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 8, 14, 15, 18, 17, and 3 in sequence.

(hereinafter referred to as the "road of this case" in total). [Grounds for recognition] The defendant's above occupation part is without dispute. Each entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including branch numbers), the result of the on-site inspection by the first instance court, the result of appraisal by U.S. appraiser of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant occupied the road of this case, thereby gaining unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the road of this case, and thereby, suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiff who is the owner of the above road.

arrow