logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가합101277
토지인도
Text

1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) KRW 12,848,00 and 5% per annum from August 19, 2015 to January 14, 2016;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The land listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant land”) was divided into Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D on February 28, 1978.

On the other hand, the aforementioned D land was divided from E on August 18, 1931, and the land category was changed from the entire land to the road at that time.

B. On February 3, 1959, the networkF completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 20, 1949 with respect to 1/2 shares of the instant land (including the aforementioned D land) along with G on April 3, 1959, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares of G on September 3, 1963, the instant land was solely owned.

The Plaintiffs, as the inheritors of the deceased F on January 31, 2008, completed 1/3 of the instant land as to each of the instant land.

C. Since May 9, 2010, the instant land was offered as a sidewalk for the passage of the general public, adjacent to H I from May 9, 2010 to H.

The rent for five years from May 9, 2010 to May 8, 2015 for the instant land is KRW 12,848,00 (in the case of a road), and the rent for one year from May 9, 2014 to May 8, 2015 is KRW 2,719,00, and the monthly rent is KRW 226,583 (= KRW 2,719,000 / 12, and less than KRW).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 through 11, the result of the court's commission of the appraiser J to the appraiser K of this court, the result of the fact inquiry with respect to this Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant without permission incorporates the land of this case, which is owned by the plaintiffs, into the road, and thus the defendant must return the amount equivalent to the rent stated in the purport of the claim, which the plaintiff obtained.

B. Determination 1 forms that the State or a local government occupies a road can be divided into possession and de facto control as a road management authority.

arrow