logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.26 2015나8855
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Until February 2013, the Plaintiff, as the executor of the Bogeumjari Housing Project in the B Project District, completed compensation for the instant land and buildings to E, the owner D of the C large 600 square meters of the land in the said Project District (hereinafter “instant land”) and the ground reinforced concrete hub roof building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendant used the instant building from E for lease. On October 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 99,583,330 to the Defendant for the pertinent obstacles, such as the instant building.

C. On September 28, 2012, the Defendant agreed to completely remove or move the obstacles to the instant building by November 30, 2012, upon entering into an agreement on compensation for obstacles with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant removed the instant building from around June 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 11-1, 2, Eul evidence 12-1, 12-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment or occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant was obligated to deliver the instant building site, etc. among the instant land to the Plaintiff from February 2, 2013 after the Defendant agreed to remove or move the obstacles at least, and the Plaintiff was obligated to deliver the instant building site, etc. from the instant land until February 2013. Since the Defendant did not perform its duty of delivery until June 2015, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment or compensate the Plaintiff for losses, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not establish measures for resettlement pursuant to Article 78-2 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and Article 41-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

arrow