logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.08 2014나2027751
부당이득금
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 127,397,973 and KRW 5,938,00 among them.

Reasons

1. On October 12, 1973, the land category of the instant case was changed from “site” to “road”, and around that time, the Defendant is assigned to and managed as a road under the Road Act, and is therefore managed by the Defendant until now.

On December 25, 1974, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the land of this case owned by the plaintiff is occupied and used as a road without any title. Thus, from August 23, 2008 to the expiration date of the defendant's possession of the land of this case or the day of loss of the plaintiff's ownership, unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent as "site" should be returned.

B. 1) Whether the occurrence of liability for return of unjust enrichment is attributable to a local government-owned and de facto road traffic, in which the owner of the land is restricted to exclusive use and profit-making, barring special circumstances, such as where the owner renounced his/her exclusive use and profit-making right to the land, the State or the local government obtains profits from occupying and using the land, and the owner of the land suffers damages therefrom. In light of the above legal principles, the State or the local government, as the road management authority of the land of this case, obtains profits equivalent to the rent, while occupying and using the land of this case, and the Plaintiff, the owner of the land, suffered losses equivalent to the same amount. Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to return unjust enrichment. 2) The Defendant’s defense asserts that the Plaintiff renounced his/her exclusive use and profit-making right to the land of this case or succeeded to the Plaintiff by waiver of the exclusive use right.

l.p. g., p.

arrow