logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.25 2018가단58906
부당이득금반환 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Sinsan-si Cap 823 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”) was divided into three: November 18, 1941, Cap 77 square meters and B 46 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); the land category on the same day was changed to a road.

B. The Plaintiff’s decedent D completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land as of December 13, 1966 due to sale and purchase on the same day, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land as of June 19, 2018 due to a property inheritance due to a consultation and division on December 23, 1973.

C. On December 1, 1938, which was designated as Do road E, which was the day of Japanese occupation occupation, as of December 1, 1938. The land of this case was divided and land category changed as of November 18, 1941, and was opened as part of Do road E. The land of this case was opened as of January 6, 1968, which was after the Sea occupation, as Do roadF, and Do road was designated as Do road G around July 9, 1981, as Do road, around November 8, 1995, as Do road, and was occupied and managed by the Defendant on November 9, 2005 after the occupation of Do road of this case was succeeded as Do road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to return the profits from the use of the land of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, barring special circumstances, since the defendant obtained the profits from the use of the land of this case by occupying and using the land of this case and thereby causes losses equivalent to the plaintiff.

B. In light of the point at which the Defendant’s assertion was held as to the instant land, and the point at which the former owner J used the road on November 1, 194, as to the instant land at the time of construction of the road.

arrow