logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.06.02 2016가단132670
부당이득반환청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Judgment on the issue

A. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant occupied and used the part of the land stated in the purport of the claim for a long time without legal cause, and sought against the Defendant for the return of current or future unjust enrichment due to long-term occupation and use of the part of the land, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unjustifiable, since C, the former owner of the part of the land, has already renounced the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the part of the land for long time

B. Ultimately, the issue in this case is whether C may be deemed to have renounced its exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the above part of the land for a long time.

(1) If the Defendant’s assertion is correct, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case cannot be accepted without the need to further examine it, in light of the Supreme Court Decision 97Da52844 Decided May 8, 1998, etc., which did not accept “the claim for return of unjust enrichment by the original owner of the land which was provided free of charge as the road site.”

However, barring any special circumstance, a road constructed and sold by a landowner while building and selling a group of housing sites constitutes cases where the landowner, including the purchaser of the land, has the authority to pass the road to all persons traveling the housing site, and the landowner may not exercise exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da8802, Jun. 11, 2009). In the instant case, considering the following circumstances that are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of arguments to the entries or images of the parts as stated in B-7, 9, 12-14 (including various numbers), the Defendant’s assertion is correct, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) On September 29, 1958, C is about 3,396 square meters in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul before the division.

arrow