(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.22 2017나78911

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 2018.06.22 2017나78911

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 23, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the said shares in the compulsory sale procedure for 21.16/105.8/105 of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Road C (hereinafter “instant road”). The Defendant is the owner who purchased a house of 307.4 square meters in Gangnam-gu, Seoul and 2nd floor (hereinafter “instant house”) located adjacent to the instant road from the former owner on January 30, 2015.

B. One side of the instant road adjoins to the public road, and the other side adjoins to the instant land and its ground, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E site and its ground, F site and its ground, G site and its ground, H site and its ground, and D site and its ground, and the instant housing, which are D site and its ground buildings.

C. On the ground of the instant road, a steel gate is installed.

It plays a role in blocking each household and the outside as described in the paragraph.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 6, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 8, the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is in contact with the housing of five households, including the instant housing owned by the Defendant. Each of the above households owner shared the instant road, installed a management office and a steel gate on the instant road as a garden, etc., used the inner space isolated from the instant road as a garden, etc., and entered each household through the instant road.

The Plaintiff acquired 21.16/100 of the road of this case owned by the former owner of the instant housing in the name of I through auction, thereby sharing the road of this case with the owner of each household except for the instant housing. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the use of the instant road according to the Plaintiff’s share ratio.

In particular, the entrance on the building drawing of the instant house is the instant case.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.22 2014가단48963

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.14 2014가단22640

-대구지방법원 2015.02.13 2014가단21912

-대구지방법원 2017.05.19 2016가단16419

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.10 2015가단5355762