logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.07.03 2018가단519859
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 14,324,600 and for this, 5% per annum from June 28, 2018 to July 3, 2019;

Reasons

Basic Facts

On March 5, 1959, the Plaintiff purchased 254 square meters in Gwangju Dong-gu D (hereinafter “Before subdivision”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land before subdivision on April 1, 1959.

On January 22, 1960, the land category was changed from “the answer” to “the site.” On February 20, 1960, the land was divided into Gwangju Dong-gu E 229 square meters and F 46 square meters.

On September 18, 1975, the land category was changed from "site" to "road," due to the movement without reporting on September 18, 1965, on the ground that "the road was prior to October 1965."

The total of F land before and after the change of land category shall be "the land in this case".

3) The Defendant is currently occupying and using the instant land as the managing body of the instant land as a road site. [Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 4 (if there is a serial number, a serial number shall be included, unless otherwise stated.

hereinafter the same shall apply.

According to the above facts, the defendant occupied and used the land of this case as a road management agency from around 1960 or around 1965 to the general public for the purpose of traffic, etc. The defendant obtained a benefit equivalent to the rent for the land of this case from around that time and thereby, thereby causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land of this case. Thus, barring special circumstances, the plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment from June 19, 2013 to the date of occupation of the land of this case, as claimed by the plaintiff, as the date of occupation of the land of this case.

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant occupied the instant land based on the lawful title in accordance with Article 6 of the former Decree on the Establishment and Market Price of Shipbuilding and Article 144 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree.

The ownership of a road by local governments.

arrow