beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust enrichment on the land of this case 1 and 2 on the ground that the deceased E, the predecessor of the plaintiff (the plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff"), provided the above land as a road for the residents of neighboring land before the designation of the road for the land of this case 1 and 2, and gave up the exclusive use right as the owner.
Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed that there was an error that affected the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing the facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.
B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, based on the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is liable to pay statutory interest or delay damages calculated from the time the Defendant occupied each of the above land as the beneficiary in bad faith, and on the other hand, in the case of the instant 3 through 14 land, it is difficult to view the Defendant as the beneficiary in bad faith. Thus, the court below held that the Defendant is liable to pay delay damages from the day following September 9, 2013 when the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim was served on the Defendant on September 6, 2013 when the application for change of the cause of the claim was
Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it is erroneous in recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules and affecting the conclusion of the