(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.04.12 2015나33704

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.04.12 2015나33704

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1.The following facts may be admitted, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective descriptions in Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 1, 2, and 4 (including a branch number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), five images and the entire arguments:

On November 9, 1931, Jin-si, B, B, 741 land (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”) was divided into “C, Jin-si, C, 92 square meters, A, 218 square meters (hereinafter “721 square meters”; hereinafter “instant land”) and D, Jin-si, D, 431 square meters, respectively, and the land category was changed to “road” on the same day.

B. The instant land was transferred to E on February 22, 1932; on July 2, 1990, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the future F on July 2, 1990; thereafter, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in sequence G and H, and on May 27, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 29, 2013.

C. The Defendant offered the instant land to the general public in general roads from November 9, 1931 to December 2006, where the land category of the instant land was changed to a road, and thereafter, to the general public.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, barring special circumstances, the Defendant, as a matter of course, opened a road on the instant land and offered it for the passage of the general public, obtains profit equivalent to the profit from the use of the land without any legal ground, and thereby, incurred the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, thereby incurring damages equivalent to the same amount. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the profit from the use of the instant land to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. (2) The Defendant’s defense as to the Defendant’s defense was divided into the instant land, and offered the instant land to the general public for about 83 years until the date of construction of the road. This is the case’s owner at the

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.03.04 2014가단14965

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.09 2019나64305

-창원지방법원 2016.10.19 2016나53538

-창원지방법원진주지원 2015.12.24 2014가단9256

-창원지방법원 2015.10.23 2013가단28936