beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.
The Defendant
(a) 31.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On July 20, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of a donation made on July 3, 2007 by Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 122 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The instant land is currently being used for the passage of the general public, and the Defendant actually occupies and manages the instant land as a road.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings [the cadastral map as to the land of this case] / [the cadastral map as to the land of this case] according to the above facts of recognition as to the ground of claim, the defendant obtained profits equivalent to rent by occupying and using the land of this case owned by the plaintiff without any legal ground, and thereby suffered damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent from July 20, 2007, which the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case to the date of loss of the plaintiff's ownership or the date of termination of the defendant's possession.
The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s defense, which was the initial owner of the instant land, renounced the exclusive and exclusive right to use the instant land, and the Plaintiff, who specifically succeeded to the instant land, also acquired the ownership with knowledge of such circumstances at least that there is a limit to use the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff may not exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use the instant land.
In addition, it is an abuse of rights to seek unjust enrichment only after seven years have elapsed since the date when redevelopment project was implemented without paying taxes on the land of this case.
Judgment
Whether or not to waive exclusive use rights is a reason.