(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.09.18 2017가단60354

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) 울산지방법원 2018.09.18 2017가단60354

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s wife B (Death around January 2001) completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 12, 1979 for each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. As to the instant land, the Plaintiff received the transfer of ownership on August 8, 2016 due to inheritance by agreement division.

C. Of the instant land, the size of 48 square meters and D road 412 square meters, among the instant land, were changed from the answer, the original land category of which was changed to the road as of November 18, 198.

The Defendant, around 198, performed the E-construction work, including the instant land, into a road site (hereinafter “instant road construction”) and thereafter, from around that time, offered the passage of the general public while occupying and managing the said land as a road and a road site.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1, 3 and 4, each of the statements and images (including, if any, a serial number), the purport before oral argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above basic facts, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff shall return the profits from the occupation and use of the instant land to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff, the deceased’s heir, cannot seek unjust enrichment against the Defendant on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff, as the deceased’s heir, was unable to seek unjust enrichment on the ground that he had occupied the instant land in peace and public performance for not less than twenty (20) years after lawful acquisition procedures were followed at the time of the instant road works; and (b) the Plaintiff

Upon completion of the acquisition by prescription for real estate, the possessor may request the title holder to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and the title holder is obligated to comply with it, so even if the possessor fails to complete the registration of ownership transfer under his/her name, and thus the title holder has not acquired the ownership,

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.05.25 2017나29547

-부산고등법원 2016.05.12 2014나54250

-대법원 1993. 5. 25. 선고 92다51280 판결

-수원지방법원 2018.03.16 2015가단137103

-의정부지방법원 2018.10.12 2018나203341