(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.06.24 2019가단12956

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) 전주지방법원 2020.06.24 2019가단12956

토지인도

Text

1. The defendant,

A. The plaintiffs remove road packaging facilities on each land listed in attached Form 1 through 6.

Reasons

1. On March 11, 2019 with respect to each of the lands listed in the M [Attachment] 1 through 6 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”), including the current status of the real estate registration, road packaging, etc., the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of “the inheritance, as N died on March 12, 1998 after the Australia inheritance.”

On the other hand, the instant land was used for the traffic of the general public after the road packing without due process, such as land expropriation, etc., which was difficult in 1989, and the rent of the instant land was KRW 26,149,240 from May 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019, and KRW 437,560 from January 1, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, result of an appraisal of rent, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the recognition prior to the determination, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, without authority, occupies and uses the instant land owned by the Plaintiffs as a road.

Therefore, the defendant shall remove road packaging facilities on the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiffs, and as a result, the defendant is obligated to pay the rent equivalent to the return of unjust enrichment by occupying the land of this case, as requested by the plaintiff, the amount equivalent to the rent of 26,149,240 won from May 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019 and the rent of 26,149,240 won from January 1, 2020 to the delivery of the land of this case shall be paid according to the corresponding shares as stated in [attached Form].

The defendant asserts that the former owner renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case by providing the land of this case as a road without compensation. Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge facts as alleged.

3. According to the conclusion, we decide to accept the Plaintiff’s claim and decide as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.08.11 2016가단214739

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.15 2016가단205918

-대구지방법원 2014.12.03 2014나302773

-대구지방법원김천지원 2014.05.28 2013가단5011

-전주지방법원 2020.10.28 2019가단25778