logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.04.24 2017가단63629
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 35,265,90 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 20, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 1972, the Plaintiff’s attached list No. B completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant lands listed in the attached list (hereinafter “O land”). On September 6, 1972, the Plaintiff’s attached list completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant lands (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff, who was ASEAN on August 19, 2010.

B. The land category of the instant 1 and 3 was changed from August 19, 2010 to a road, and the land category of the instant 2 was changed from a orchard to a road on January 7, 2002.

C. From the time of the above land category change to the present day, the Defendant occupied and managed each of the instant land by providing general public with traffic and passage.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant provided each of the lands of this case as a passage to the general public and acquired the profit from the use of each of the lands of this case and thereby suffered the loss equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent of each of the lands of this case to the plaintiff, who is the owner of each of the lands of this case

B. The Defendant asserted the waiver of the exclusive right to use the exclusive right to use the land of this case first, and the B and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the Defendant, despite being aware that each land of this case was used as the road site, so that B and the Plaintiff did not waive the exclusive right to use and benefit from each of the land of this case and did not cause any damage.

In fact, any private land is classified into a road which is naturally occurring or planned to be a road site and is actually used for the traffic of the general public.

arrow