logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.27 2014나30963
부당이득금반환
Text

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

2. The plaintiff's claim concerning the above revoked part is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff first instance court rejected part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 23,421,50 and the amount equivalent to the rent from May 10, 2013 on the ground that the Defendant occupied the instant roads 1, 2, and E and inflicted damages on the Plaintiff, namely, a claim for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 23,421,50 and the amount equivalent to the rent from May 10, 2013; ② the Defendant occupied the instant roads 1, 2, and 19,150,500 and the amount equivalent to the rent from May 10, 2013 to the Plaintiff; and the amount equivalent to the rent from the first instance court to the Defendant’s joint claim against the Defendant 1,271,000 and the portion equivalent to the remainder of the rent from the first instance court against the Defendant 2, who lost the Plaintiff.

B. However, according to the plaintiff's assertion, the main claim of this case concerning the road of this case and the conjunctive claim of this case are legally incompatible that are generally accepted depending on who is the possessor of the road of this case, and the co-defendant of the first instance court and the defendant of this case are in a preliminary co-litigation relationship. However, among the conjunctive claims of this case, the claims concerning roads 1 and 2 of this case are merely a quantitative reduction of the main claim of this case, and they are not compatible with the main claim, and they cannot be viewed as the preliminary claim.

C. Ultimately, the Defendant’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in possession of the instant 1 and 2 roads and the subjective preliminary claim against E roads were objectively combined.

That is, the claim for unjust enrichment in possession of the road is the primary claim against the defendant.

arrow