(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2015.10.02 2015가단2856

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) 창원지방법원진주지원 2015.10.02 2015가단2856

토지인도 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 27, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant land prior to the date of closing the argument in the instant case, at the Changwon District Court’s private registry office No. 1857, Jan. 27, 201, at the auction of the KRW 1,047 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) sold the instant land before the date of closing the argument.

B. On December 10, 2010, the Defendant: (a) was awarded a successful bid of 822 square meters of the D warehouse site adjacent to the instant land; and (b) was the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer under the receipt of No. 30260 on December 10, 2010; and (c) was operating the Recycling Center on the said land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant occupied the portion of the instant dispute in the manner of piling recyclables on the part of the instant land, which was owned by the Plaintiff from January 27, 2011 to March 27, 2015, in which the Plaintiff acquired ownership, on the part of the instant land, the Plaintiff occupied the portion of the instant dispute in the manner of piling recyclables into 628.2m2m2 (hereinafter “the instant dispute part”), and made unjust enrichment without any legal cause, and incurred losses equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff.

Since the rent for the part in the dispute of this case is KRW 556,522 per month, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff unjust enrichment 27,826,100 won per month [56,52 won per month x 50 months (from January 27, 2011 to March 27, 2015] and damages for delay.

3. In a claim for the return of unjust enrichment, the burden of proving the existence of the benefit lies on the person who claims the benefit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 64Da413 delivered on September 8, 1964) According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 5 video and pleading, it is recognized that the defendant occupied part of the land of this case by piling up recyclables.

However, only the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is the part of the instant dispute between January 27, 2011 and March 27, 2015.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.07.10 2016가단8073

-창원지방법원진주지원 2016.02.05 2014가단30908

-창원지방법원진주지원 2015.10.28 2014가합10376

-창원지방법원 2016.09.27 2016나51808

-수원지방법원안산지원 2020.02.05 2018가단22213