logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
수원지방법원평택지원 2016.09.28 2015가단6659
토지인도등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The summary of the cause of the instant claim is that the Defendant, around 2009, installed a waterway (hereinafter “instant waterway”) on the part of 83 square meters of the land located within the scope of the lower court (hereinafter “instant land”) and without permission, connected each point of the attached drawings Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the 811 square meters of Pyeongtaek-si forest land owned by the Plaintiff, which is located within the Plaintiff, and occupied and used the instant land from around that time.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10 million, which is part of the unjust enrichment on the instant land after January 1, 2009, as well as damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the merits, and the fact that the Defendant established the waterway on the ground of the instant land around 2009 by the Defendant is not a dispute between the parties.

However, according to the statements and images of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, on the ground of the land in this case, there existed naturally a drainage way which occurred prior to the installation of the waterway on the ground of the land in this case, and the defendant can be found to have established the waterway on the ground of the maintenance of the existing drainage channel at the request of neighboring residents in order to prevent natural disasters. Thus, the plaintiff could not exclusively use and benefit from the land in this case since the defendant had been unable to install the waterway in this case before the installation of the waterway in this case and the possession of the land in this case. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff suffered any damage.

In addition, even if the Defendant occupied the instant land without permission and caused any damage to the Plaintiff, no evidence exists to determine the amount of unjust enrichment on the instant land.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

B. Where the judgment party with respect to an application for resumption of oral argument has filed an application for resumption of oral argument to submit proof of argument after the closing of oral argument, in principle, the court shall have the discretion to accept the application.

arrow