logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.06.28 2018가합111749
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be incidental to the participation.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 1994, Plaintiff A acquired the ownership of each of the lands listed in Section 1-A of the annexed Table No. 1 of the annexed Table No. 1, September 16, 1994, and the land listed in Section 1-B of the annexed Table No. 1-B as of September 30, 2002, Plaintiff B acquired the ownership of each of the lands listed in Section 2-B of the annexed Table No. 2-B as of December 18, 2012, and the Defendants acquired the ownership of each of the lands listed in Section 3 of the annexed Table No. 3 as of June 4, 207.

B. Each land listed in [Attachment List Nos. 1, 2, and 3 is the land created through the compartmentalization and rearrangement project at the time, and the passage route has not been created separately at the time, and as a result, it was designated as a building line (designated building line) under Article 27 of the former Joseon City Planning Decree (repealed by Article 27 of the Addenda to the Building Act, Act No. 984, Jan. 20, 1962; hereinafter “former Joseon City Ordinance”). As the plaintiffs constructed a building based on the above building line, they connected each land listed in Attached List No. 1, which is listed in Attached Table No. 25, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 3, 4, 26, and 25, and the land indicated in Attached Table No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s List No. 2, 3,45,36,75,37,300,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including paper numbers) and images, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal to E by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants used the instant dispute land owned by the Plaintiffs as a passage to the parking lot of the Defendants’ building owned by the Defendants, and occupied and used the said land. Therefore, the Defendants should return unjust enrichment, such as the purport of the claim, to the Plaintiffs.

(b).

arrow