logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.11.07 2018가단103350
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 599,770 as well as 5% per annum from October 1, 2018 to November 7, 2018;

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on or around June 4, 2002 with respect to the instant land; the fact that part 1 of the order on the instant land was packaged as a road and used for the passage of the general public; the Defendant’s packaging of the water supply facilities on or around 2005, which was laid off as a water supply facility on or around the above part, may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties concerned; (b) evidence No. 1-2, No. 3, No. 4-1, No. 2, No. 4-1, No. 3, and No. 6; and (c) the fact that the evidence No. 1-2, No. 5

2. The gist of the parties’ assertion is the cause of the instant claim. Since the Defendant occupied the instant land, the Defendant did not have occupied the instant land, and the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit therefrom, it did not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. Determination

A. (1) Determination as to the cause of the claim (1) When the State or a local government actually performs road renovation or maintenance and repair works, such as expansion of existing roads, road packaging, and construction of sewerage systems, and for the public traffic, such roads shall be deemed to be under the actual control of the State or a local government, and possession as a de facto controlling entity may be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da34155, Feb. 23, 1993). According to the above recognition, the defendant occupies as a de facto controlling entity on the part of the ship.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the part on the ship to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant, since the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit.

The right to use and benefit is the most owned.

arrow