logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.02.28 2017다233733
부당이득금
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Restrictions on the exercise of exclusive rights by landowners are premised on public interest resulting from the provision of the relevant land to the general public. Therefore, it should be deemed that land owners continue to exist only to the extent that objective use of land at the time of providing the relevant land for public purposes is maintained.

Therefore, even if a landowner’s land use status is formed in conformity with his/her own intent by providing the land to the public for use, and its exercise of exclusive use rights is restricted, in cases where objective circumstances, which form the basis for restricting the exercise of exclusive use rights due to a significant change in the land use status, were significantly changed, and where deeming that the owner was unable to anticipate such change at the time of providing the land for use by the public, and that the exercise of exclusive use rights may result in a significant imbalance in the interests of the parties, the landowner may again claim the right based on the complete ownership, including the right to use and benefit, from the time of such change in situation.

In such a case, whether there is any change in the situation should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the point of view, including the location and physical form of the relevant land, motive and background leading up to the provision of the land to the general public for use, relationship with the relevant land and neighboring land, identity with the previous use situation, and possibility of infringing the trust of the general public by allowing the landowner to exercise his/her rights.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da264556 Decided January 24, 2019). 2. A.

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below held that the land of this case is in accordance with AC Housing Redevelopment Project.

arrow