logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.08.21 2014가단56723
부당이득금
Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 28, 2012, Plaintiff DNB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd”) completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its own name with respect to the land of 1141 square meters and 363 square meters in the land of Ildong-dong-gu, Seoyang-si (hereinafter “the instant land”). Plaintiff A completed the registration of transfer in its own name with respect to the land of 1141 square meters and 363 square meters in the land of miscellaneous land (hereinafter “the instant land”). Plaintiff A completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the land of 68 square meters in D road and 17 square meters in the E road (hereinafter “the instant land”).

B. The land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is packed with an Amcom as shown in the attached appraisal map, and the defendant occupies and manages the above Amcom package as a road.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 4, and Gap evidence 2, the result of the survey and appraisal by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is liable to return to the plaintiffs the benefits acquired by occupying and using the land Nos. 1 and 2 without any legal grounds, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The former owner of the land of this case allowed the possession and use of the land of this case as a road, or waived his exclusive use and profit-making rights. 2) The original owner of the land waives his exclusive use and profit-making rights by offering a part of the land as a road site without compensation, and accordingly, the resident's specific successor through auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc. after he got a free access to the land. It is reasonable to view that the former owner of the land of this case acquired the ownership of the land, at least by recognizing the situation that there is a burden of restricting such use and profit-making.

arrow