logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.02.26 2017가단30565
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 1,884,711 and interest thereon shall be 15% per annum from January 17, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land who completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 13, 2007 with respect to B forest No. 1,073 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) on December 14, 2007.

B. Of the instant land, the part of the attached Table 1, 12 through 16, 5, 6, 17 through 21, 10, 11, and 1 among the land of this case, which connects each point of the attached Table 1, 12 through 16, 5, 6, 17 through 21, 10, 11, and 11 (hereinafter

C. The road portion of this case was used as a road to enter Leecheon-si, as an access road to the Riri, but the residents received concrete packaging projects as a part of the Saemaul project in the 1970s, and residents recommended repair works on D pages in the 2000s, and were used as a road to be passed by the general public.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, the result of this court's entrustment of appraisal to Leecheon branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the purport of the arguments in the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, as the de facto controller without a legitimate right holder, provided the road section to the general public for the passage of the general public. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return the rent equivalent to the above rent to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the road section of this case. 2) The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the road section of this case had been used as the access road before the plaintiff acquired ownership, and the owner of the road of this case renounced exclusive and exclusive right to use for village residents, and the plaintiff acquired the land of this case with the knowledge of such circumstances.

l.p. g., p.

arrow