logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.01.28 2015나32978
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 7, 1968, the net C purchased the instant real estate No. 1,370 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day. As the network C dies, the Plaintiffs, the inheritor, as of May 6, 201, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on January 17, 201 by 1/2 shares each on the grounds of inheritance by consultation and division.

B. Around August 30, 1958, the category of the instant real estate was changed from the answer to the bank.

C. After that, the Defendant, around 190, performed road packaging construction works on the (A) section 714 square meters in order to connect each point of the attached appraisal map among the instant real estate with each point of 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 21, and 714 square meters in line (hereinafter “road section of the instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the termination company of the first instance court's cadastral construction work, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant has a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for each share of the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs, except in extenuating circumstances, since the defendant occupied the road portion of the real estate of this case and obtained profit equivalent to the rent and suffered loss from the plaintiffs.

B. As to whether the Defendant waivers the exclusive right to use and benefit from the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the road among the instant real estate.

If a private land is naturally occurring or is assigned to be used as a road site and is actually being used as a public road for the traffic of the general public, the owner of the land directly provides such land as a road, thereby granting the neighboring residents or the general public the right to free of charge.

arrow