(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.01 2016나7974

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.01 2016나7974

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case on October 28, 1980 by means of sale and purchase on the ground that it completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case on March 3, 1986.

B. The instant land is assigned to the national highway D, and is currently being used as a road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant occupies and uses it on the road without permission, and the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment of KRW 15,653,790 equivalent to the rent from December 2, 2009 to October 27, 2015, and KRW 262,00 per month from October 28, 2015 to October 27, 2015.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is not obliged to pay unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, since the Defendant acquired the instant land in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and occupied the instant land in peace and public performance for not less than 30 years and acquired it by prescription.

3. If the nature of the source of possessory right of real estate is not clear, the possessor shall be presumed to have occupied in good faith and in good faith the possessor shall be deemed to have occupied in possession, and such presumption shall also apply to cases where the State or a local government, which is a managing body of cadastral records, etc., occupies.

However, in a case where it is proved that an occupant occupied an immovable property owned by another person without permission knowing the absence of such legal requirements, without being aware of the existence of any legal act or other legal requirements which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, barring any special circumstance, the possessor shall be deemed not to have the intention to reject the ownership of another person and not to possess it. Thus, it

참조조문

-민법 제197조 제1항

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2017.12.08 2017가단3979

-제주지방법원 2017.05.12 2016가단53861

-부산지방법원 2018.10.17 2018나44463

-제주지방법원 2018.01.12 2017가단51404

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.10 2016가단5031261