logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.09.02 2019가단117118
부당이득금
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around 1979, E divided the F field 2,552 square meters into F field 1,863 square meters, G field 275 square meters, H field 156 square meters, 156 square meters in I field, and 102 square meters in D field (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). D land was divided into F field 1,863 square meters, G field 275 square meters, and D land.

B. The Plaintiff J purchased the instant land from E on December 4, 1979, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 5, 1979.

C. On November 15, 1991, the Defendant conducted a general survey on the current status in order to match the land category in the cadastral record with the actual status. After investigating that the instant land is being used as the current status, the land category of the instant land was changed ex officio from the answer to the road.

The Plaintiff was donated the instant land from J on March 12, 2010, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 15, 2010.

E. The instant land is connected to the road in the present packing condition, and is surrounded by G, H, I land, etc. as shown in the attached Form, and the building is constructed on each of the above lands.

Accordingly, the land in this case is used as an entry from each of the above buildings to a contribution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the inquiry result of the case at the Government of this Court, the appraiser K's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On November 15, 1991, the Defendant asserted that the land category of the instant land was changed ex officio from the response to the road, and maintained and repaired the instant land until now.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, is obligated to pay unjust enrichment from June 7, 2014, which was five years prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, to the Plaintiff from the expiry date of the Defendant’s possession of the instant land or the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership.

B. Defendant’s assertion

arrow