logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2015.12.02 2014나11916
부당이득금
Text

1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the statement in paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land by installing a pent and container on the instant land, attaching a banner stating “in the course of exercising the right of retention” on the container, etc., and excluding the control of others. However, the Defendant, through C, who was an employee, illegally deprived of the Plaintiff’s possession by arbitrarily disposing of the said container. As such, the Defendant ought to transfer the instant land to the Plaintiff.

(b) If the possessor is deprived of possession, he/she may demand the return, etc. of the article;

(See Article 204(1) of the Civil Act. In a lawsuit for the recovery of possession, it is exempted to consider only whether the person has occupied the object at the time of claiming that the person was deprived of possession. Here, the term "Possession" refers to the objective relationship in which the object is deemed to belong to the factual control of the person in terms of social norms, and the purpose of de facto control is not to refer to only physical actual control, but to the determination of the object in conformity with social norms, taking into account the time and spatial relationship with the object, the possibility of excluding others' control, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da61424, Feb. 23, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, health units, A, 5, 6, 8, and 8

9. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each description or image of the evidence Nos. 10, 13 through 19, Eul Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (including serial numbers), the Plaintiff installed pents (hereinafter “the instant pents”) on the outer part of the instant land after concluding the instant subcontract for the construction, and cut off from the outside of the construction site, and the instant land.

arrow