본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
수원지방법원 2019.11.19 2018나72963

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal and additional determination as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

【Supplementary order of the court of first instance】 From 4th to 14th of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant possessed the instant site without any legal cause, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments in the entries and videos in the evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 7 of this case, the retaining wall was installed since the land before division and land category were changed to a river, and the Defendant, around December 2000, performed the removal, reconstruction, and restoration of the existing retaining wall for the welfare of the residents, as the retaining wall was ruptured, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant occupied the retaining wall. The land category of the instant site at the time of reconstruction after the reconstruction of the existing retaining wall was changed to a river ( July 2, 200), and since the land category was legally incorporated into the river area in accordance with the river area as applied mutatis mutandis according to the determination and public notice of the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do and the river maintenance plan, the river management authority, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be justified.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the court of first instance rejected the plaintiff's claim based on the fact that the land in this case does not correspond to compensation for losses or purchase claim under the River Act. However, the court of first instance using the phrase "(No. 4, No. 10, No. 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance)" apart from receiving compensation for losses under Article 74 of the former River Act can receive compensation for losses. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment is based on this.