(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.12.11 2013나14668

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) 인천지방법원 2014.12.11 2013나14668

토지사용료

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 3, 1993, the Seoul Southern-gu 203 ground row operation 203 (the details of self-taxation are as shown in the list of annexed Table 1; hereinafter "the building of this case") shared 1/4 shares, respectively. On February 3, 1993, with respect to the above D, E, and F shares, the transfer registration for shares was completed in the G future, and the transfer registration for shares in the Defendant's name was completed again on July 5, 1995.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, with respect to the share of 2557.215/15/257 of the 5757-25/10 of the land in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B (hereinafter “instant land”), the transfer registration was completed on February 3, 1993, and the transfer registration was completed on July 5, 1995 with respect to the share of 785.84/1/10 of the above share, which is part of the above share, in the name of the defendant.

C. On May 31, 2001, with respect to a certain share (732.6/1917/7) of the instant land, including the share in G as described in the foregoing sub-paragraph (b), the registration of transfer of share in the name of C was cancelled in accordance with the provisional disposition prior to the registration of transfer of share in each of the above sub-paragraph (b).

On April 1, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased 239.945 shares (hereinafter “instant dispute shares”) of 239.1/1, 1971, the remaining shares of C from April 1, 2011, and completed the registration of transfer of shares on April 21, 201.

【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 6, 20, 21, evidence Nos. 23-2, 3, 23, 25, 30, and 31, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to return the rent equivalent to the right to use the site as unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, who is the co-owner of the land of this case, including the right to use the site of this case, since the defendant owned the building of this case on the land of this case without the right to use site.

For this reason,

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.11.19 2019가단519863

-서울남부지방법원 2017.01.25 2016가단217189

-서울고등법원 2015.07.17 2014나2040969

-대구지방법원서부지원 2020.11.25 2017가단58974

-제주지방법원 2015.01.21 2013나2009