beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant installed two safety lights on the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the land in this case"), and is the managing body of sewage pipes installed under the ground of the land in this case. Since the possession of the land in this case and the managing body of the water supply pipes installed under the ground of the land in this case occupied and used the land in this case without permission from May 1, 198, as the land in this case were occupied and used without permission, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the rent of the land in this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
As to this, the defendant did not occupy the land of this case, and even if the defendant's possession is recognized, the former owner of the land of this case renounced the exclusive use right of the land of this case, and the plaintiff acquired the land of this case with the well-known knowledge of the fact that there is a limit to the use right of this case, so
B. Determination as to the cause of a claim may be made by dividing the form of possession of a road by the State or a local government into possession and possession as a de facto controller. In a case where a public announcement of recognition of routes under the Road Act or a road zone is determined, or where a road is constructed by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, possession as a road management authority may be recognized starting from the point of time. In a case where the State or a local government, even though there was no act of construction of a road under the Road Act, is performing the reconstruction or maintenance of a road, such as expansion of the existing road, packing, or installation of sewerage system, and thus, for the public traffic, possession as a de facto controller can be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 195Da648, Jun. 29, 195).