logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.02.02 2015가단44262
부당이득금반환 등
Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for the purchase price pursuant to the claim for purchase under Article 79 of the River Act shall be dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The net C on March 27, 1922

3. The instant land, which had completed the registration of ownership transfer in one’s future on the grounds of sale by the Plaintiff on May 23, 1935, was designated as a river area D public notice of Jeonnam-do on May 23, 1935. The Plaintiff was succeeded to the said land by Australia inheritance on March 20, 1945.

B. On September 9, 1966, the land category of the instant land was changed into a river for its land cadastre, and the Defendant publicly announced the instant land as a river area of a local second-class river on June 7, 1993.

The instant land constitutes a river area of E, a local river, and is publicly notified as a quasi-river.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2-1, 4, 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. As to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant occupied the instant land as a Class 2 river site from March 27, 1922 without any right to use it, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff for five years from October 10 to October 9, 2015.

B. If a piece of land was incorporated into a river area, even if the owner suffered damages by being subject to the restriction on the exercise of private right to use and profit therefrom, the owner may not claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent on the ground that the possession of a local government, which is a river management agency, is a possession without the authority, barring any special circumstance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da211278 Decided July 9, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 93Da30686 Decided November 18, 1994, etc.). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. As to the claim for damages

A. In addition, the Plaintiff’s additional claim for the compensation of losses from the preparatory documents dated September 2, 2016 and October 19 of the same year, Article 76 of the River Act, Article 74(1) of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 6656, Feb. 4, 2002); Article 74(1) of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 5453, Dec. 13, 1997).

arrow