logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.19 2014가단5235519
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On February 29, 1993, the Plaintiff’s assertion C leased the instant land from the Plaintiff, thereby running a household store in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D & 58.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Around April 8, 2003, the Defendant, who is a child of C, occupied and used the instant land by July 12, 2012, by acquiring a temporary building from the mother of C, and operating a household store in the name of E, who is practically succeeded to the right to dispose of the building.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 49,136,028 equivalent to the rent for the instant land.

2. In that it is impossible for the building owner to leave the site, the land which became the site for the building shall be deemed to be possessed by the owner of the building. In this case, even if the owner of the building does not actually occupy the building or its site, it shall be deemed that the building owner occupies the site for the purpose of owning the building.

Unless special circumstances exist, such as where the transferee holds the de facto right to dispose of the building site by taking over unregistered buildings, and the transferee shall not be deemed to possess the building site, and even if he actually occupies the building, the person who occupies the building site shall not be deemed to possess the building site.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935 Decided November 13, 2003). In this case, C, the owner of the instant building, occupies or uses the instant land; and barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant occupies or uses the instant land even if he/she occupies or uses the instant land.

In addition, just because the Defendant paid the instant land rent, and removed the instant temporary building on the instant land, it is insufficient to deem that the instant land was occupied by holding the de facto right to dispose of the instant building, and evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

arrow