(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.12.12 2017가단247458

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.12.12 2017가단247458

소유권확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed;

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) awarded a successful bid for a 23m2 in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) paid the sale price to acquire ownership.

B. On the land of this case, the building of this case exists.

According to the building ledger prepared as to the building of this case, which is unregistered building, the building of this case was newly constructed on June 14, 1954, and the owner status is indicated in order by the primary defendant B (I, before December 8, 1969), and by the ancestor J (I and the date of transfer are not indicated separately) of the conjunctive Defendants.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment against J, which was registered as the owner on the building ledger of the instant building by means of service with the purport that “the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 1,483,500 each year from June 19, 2015 to the day on which ownership of the instant building was lost” from the said court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

The J had already died on March 23, 1974, and the conjunctive Defendants inherited the property of J according to the corresponding share ratio as stated in the heir list.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the main defendant B

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff had a claim for return of unjust enrichment against J according to the above final judgment. Since the J died, the plaintiff's conjunctive defendants, the heir of J, succeeded to the above obligation for return of unjust enrichment.

Therefore, in order to preserve the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the conjunctive Defendants, the Plaintiff confirmed that the instant building was jointly owned by the conjunctive Defendants, who are the former owner on the building ledger, on behalf of the conjunctive Defendants.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.08.26 2015나57615

-제주지방법원 2018.02.09 2017가단50227

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.12 2019나65926

-울산지방법원 2016.11.30 2015가단3906

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.31 2018가합512896