(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.01.06 2014나53738

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) 인천지방법원 2015.01.06 2014나53738

부당이득금

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that since the defendant occupied the N. 136 square meters of the road in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter "the land in this case"), which is the plaintiffs' ownership, without any title, and manages the land in this case as the road, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the rent equivalent to the amount of the rent calculated with the land category of the land in this case as the "transfer" as the return of unjust enrichment, and the rent equivalent to the rent calculated with the land category of the land in this case as the "road".

B. As to this, the Defendant used the instant land as a road from 1940 to 1940, and the Defendant continuously occupied the instant land in good faith by succeeding to the occupation of the relocating Management Agency and acquired the instant land in good faith, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant is unfair. Moreover, the Plaintiffs waivered their exclusive and exclusive use right because they did not raise any objection despite being aware that the instant land was used as a road for general traffic, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for return of unjust enrichment is contrary to the principle of trust.

C. As to the Defendant’s defense of prescriptive acquisition, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant’s possession of the instant land constitutes an unauthorized possession, and thus the presumption of autonomous possession was broken.

2. Determination

A. As to the land of this case, the registration of transfer in the name of the plaintiffs (excluding plaintiffs L, M) and the network T and U is completed, the plaintiffs L and M are the successors of the network U, and the plaintiffs A, C and B are the successors of the network T, and the facts that the defendant occupied and managed the land of this case while using the land of this case as a road can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties, or the video of Eul No. 1 through No. 9 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.09.22 2016가단223771

-의정부지방법원 2015.06.05 2014가합53759

-서울서부지방법원 2017.08.08 2016가단249482

-서울중앙지방법원 2008. 12. 18. 선고 2007가합50538 판결

-서울고등법원 2015.11.05 2015나2031832