(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.03.21 2017가합202262

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) 청주지방법원 2018.03.21 2017가합202262

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) As regards KRW 778,173,467 and KRW 25,00,000 among them, December 13, 2016; and KRW 625,46.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 1994, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, the entire share transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on March 28, 1994, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "land of this case"), and with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 3 (the total share transfer registration was completed on May 28, 1997 under the name of the Plaintiff on May 27, 1997, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4 of the separate sheet No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "the building of this case"). The registration of ownership transfer was completed in each name of the Defendant on October 26, 1994.

B. From October 17, 2006, the Defendant independently uses and benefits from all of the instant land and buildings from around October 17, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the cause of a claim is that a building cannot exist in terms of social norms. Thus, the land at which the site of the building was the site of the building shall be deemed possession by the owner of the building. However, since the profit in return of unjust enrichment on the ground of the benefit without any legal ground refers to the substantial profit, it is separate from the use and profit-making of the real estate, which is the premise for the possession of the real estate and the return of unjust enrichment. On the other hand, the co-owners may use and profit from the whole share of the co-owners at the rate of share, and the matters concerning the management of the jointly-owned property shall be determined by the majority of shares of the co-owners. Thus, if one of the co-owners exclusively occupies and uses the jointly-owned property without the agreement of a majority of shares among the co-owners as to the specific method of use and profit-making of the jointly-owned property, the other co-owners shall be deemed to have made unjust enrichment corresponding to the share (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da49

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 11. 24. 선고 2006다49307, 49314 판결

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.02.03 2015가단35284

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.05.11 2015가단46862

-수원지방법원 2017.12.14 2016가단800606

-수원지방법원 2016.01.08 2015나11080

-광주지방법원 2016.07.27 2015가단526283