beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. The Plaintiff 4,305,830 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from June 10, 2017 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 10, 1985, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 22, 2013 on the ground of the inheritance of the property due to the consultation division on April 10, 1985 with respect to the land of 387 square meters, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “the land of this case”). Plaintiff B is “the land of this case 2 square meters or less of D-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si.”
(B) On April 9, 2003, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 1, 2010 on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division. The land category was changed from orchard to a road on April 15, 1987. The land category of this case was changed from forest land to a road on December 15, 197, and the land category of this case was changed to a road on December 15, 197. From the time of the change of each land category of this case, the Defendant occupied and managed the land Nos. 1 and 2 in providing the general public for traffic and traffic from the time of the change of each land category of this case. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute over the fact that the land No. 1 and 2 of this case is occupied and managed by the public.
2. Return of unjust enrichment:
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant has a duty to return the amount equivalent to the rent of the land Nos. 1 and 2 in this case to the plaintiffs, who are the owners of the land Nos. 1 and 2 in this case, as the defendant provided the land Nos. 1 and 2 as the general public's passage and occupied and used the land, thereby gaining profit from the use of the land No. 1 and 2 in this case.
B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not raise any objection to the Defendant, while knowing that the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was used as the road site, as the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that no damage was incurred by waiver of the exclusive and exclusive rights to use the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case.
From the beginning, any private land is the first.