(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.01.21 2017가단143240

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.01.21 2017가단143240

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, along with D and E, share the 162.1 square meters of the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Road C (hereinafter “instant road”). The shares of Plaintiff B related to the said road are 9/18, and the shares of Plaintiff A are 3/18.

B. The road of this case is a sidewalk package, and on the underground, a waterway managed by the defendant is installed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession of the above road to the plaintiffs as the possessor of the road of this case, which is owned by the plaintiffs, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The former owner of the road of this case, at around 1973, renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from the road of this case by dividing the road of this case into the above site and providing the general public with free use in order to enhance the utility value of the above site. Thus, the former owner of the road of this case cannot exercise his exclusive right to use and benefit from the road.

B. (1) In a case where a landowner provided his/her own land for public use, such as a road and a site laid underground, the following circumstances are comprehensively considered: (a) the details and period of ownership of the land; (b) the details and scale of the owner’s provision of the land for public use; (c) the existence of the owner’s interest or benefits from the provision of the land; (d) the location or form of the part of the land; (e) the relationship with the neighboring land; and (e) the comparative balancing between the ownership guarantee of the landowner and the public interest; and (e) if the owner is deemed to have waived exclusive, exclusive, and exclusive rights to use

Even if there are no special circumstances, the owner of the land suffers any damage.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2020.01.21 2017가단143240

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.19 2018나61460

-대법원 2019.03.14 2017다224005

-대법원 2019.04.03 2015다234572

-서울북부지방법원 2019.11.08 2018가단143797