logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.15 2013가단5136202
부당이득금
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 22, 1943, the 1,165 square meters in Cheongju-si, one owned L, is divided into 102 square meters in N, J road 767 square meters (hereinafter “the first road”) and 831 square meters in O.

B. The above O No. 831 was divided into P No. 825 and P No. 6 on November 10, 1953. The above O No. 825 were divided into P No. 123 and Q No. 162 and K No. 540 on January 10, 195, and the above Q No. 162 transferred ownership under the Defendant’s name on March 23, 195.

C. The above K 540 square meters was divided into 75 square meters in K on May 1, 1958 and R 465 square meters, and the above K 75 square meters was changed to a road on June 1, 1958 by land category and 248 square meters in K 248 square meters (hereinafter “instant 2 road”).

The above L died on January 5, 1962, and the plaintiffs inherited the above L's property directly or in order, and the plaintiffs are co-owners of the roads Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter "each of the roads of this case").

E. The defendant currently occupies and uses each of the roads of this case as a road.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, as long as the defendant fails to prove the right to possess each of the roads of this case, it shall be deemed that the plaintiffs, co-owners of each of the roads of this case, are obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent for occupying and using each of the roads of

B. The defendant's assertion (1) since the defendant's argument renounced his right to use and benefit from each of the roads of this case, the defendant did not have a duty to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs.

(2) If a private land is, in fact, naturally occurring or is classified into a proposed road site and used as a road for common traffic, the owner of the land directly provides it as a road to neighboring residents or the general public.

arrow