logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.11.19 2018나12252
부당이득금 반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments to the argument that the plaintiff emphasized or re-convened in the trial of the court of first instance:

(Application Law: the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). [Additional Judgment] The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant used the instant facility to conduct camping business without authority from March 1, 201 to June 31, 2013, and from October 1, 2013 to June 30, 2017.

The defendant asserts that the "I Campping" was operated in G and H areas after 2015, and that there was a toilet and other auxiliary facilities in the area, and that the instant facilities, which are ancillary facilities to J area, were not used.

Gap evidence 16, 18, Eul evidence 9, 10, 18-22, 27-37 (including family numbers) can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances: ① K's camping zone is classified into L, M, G, H, N, J,O, P, etc. (the facilities in this case are located in J), ② K appears to have " Qtopping site" operated by the plaintiff and "Icping site" operated by the defendant; ③ around May 2015, the defendant obtained permission to convert the mountainous district for the creation of a camping site from the Yaean-gun-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Y-gun, 583 square meters from the Gun of Thai-gun on the ground that the defendant was equipped with "I camping site" and incidental facilities, such as a toilet zone, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise in light of the lack of evidence to acknowledge that the defendant used the facilities in this case other than the defendant's operation.

The plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

2. The judgment of the first instance court at the conclusion is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

arrow