logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.03.28 2017다232891
부당이득금
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In case where a landowner sells a housing site in lots and provides the land owned by him as a passage between the housing site and the public road, the landowner shall not exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, on the ground that he has given the purchaser of the housing site and all other persons who are to reside in the housing site the right to gratuitously pass the land and is obliged to allow their passage to be permitted;

Furthermore, it is reasonable to deem that a person who specifically succeeds to the ownership of the land, the exercise of the exclusive use right of which by the original owner is restricted, through auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc., has acquired the ownership of the land, at least with the knowledge that there is a burden of restricting such use and profit-making, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, such specific successor is prohibited from exercising the exclusive and exclusive use right of the land.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da264556 Decided January 24, 2019, etc.). 2. A.

The lower court determined as follows, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment.

1) After dividing the above land into several parcels, F, while selling the above land, limited F, the exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from the F’s first roads by providing the above land as a site for a road site. Moreover, W, who was the owner of the second and third roads of this case, already used as the only passage for the land divided into the above land, was limited to W’s exclusive and exclusive rights to benefit from the second and third roads. 2) In light of the history, form, etc. of division and land category change of the first, second, and third roads of this case at the time of purchase, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and B were in close vicinity for a number of years in number of years, including the first, second, and third roads of this case.

arrow