logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.10.19 2016가단109939
사용료
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is entirely dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are fully borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 28, 1967, the Plaintiff purchased the first real estate among each real estate listed in the separate sheet located in Daegu-gu (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 28, 2008.

B. On December 28, 1967, the Plaintiff, AG, and H purchased each of 1/3 shares of 2 real estate among each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant 2 real estate”) and filed a registration of transfer on December 30 of the same year.

After that, the plaintiff purchased 1/3 shares of AG on February 7, 2005, and registered the transfer on February 11, 2005.

C. On December 28, 1967, the Plaintiff, AG, and H purchased 1/3 shares of the third real estate among each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “third real estate”) and registered the transfer on December 30 of the same year.

After that, on December 27, 1971, the Plaintiff purchased AH’s 1/3 equity shares and registered the transfer on December 30 of the same year.

On April 12, 1972, the Plaintiff purchased shares of 1/3 of AG and sold shares of the same year.

4. 13. The registration of transfer was made.

The Defendants are those who are or were residing in the vicinity of each of the instant real estate.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff, the owner of each of the instant real estate, should return the amount of the rent to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, since the Defendants used each of the instant real estate as a road and obtained benefits equivalent to the rent.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim is unjustifiable, since they renounced the right to use and benefit from each of the instant real estate.

3. First of all, determination is based on whether to waive the right to use and benefit from each of the instant real estate.

Where a private land is naturally occurring or is assigned to be a proposed road and actually used as a road for public traffic, the owner of such land shall own use the land as a road.

arrow