logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.24 2014가단67575
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Claim against the Defendants other than Defendant AD, AG, AR, and AX

A. On April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff received a successful bid in the process of compulsory auction on April 23, 2012 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 2, 2012.

On the site of this case, BD apartment is constructed on the 6th above ground level.

(c) there is no dispute; (b)

Plaintiff

The Plaintiff, among the instant land, owned the instant shares from April 24, 2012 to December 31, 2014.

The above defendants are co-owners of apartment buildings constructed on the site of this case, or are those who own sectional ownership after the plaintiff owned the above shares.

The Plaintiff did not use and benefit from the instant land during the ownership of the said shares, and the said Defendants used and benefited from the instant land.

The Defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the land rent that occurred from April 24, 2012 to December 31, 2014.

C. (1) Fact-finding (1) In the instant site, BE (30 households), an aggregate building, was established in around 1981.

The 30 sectional owners form a BE annually reconstruction association to cancel their site registration and trust each co-owned share to the same association.

After the removal of BE Smoke, the above partnership became the owner of the building and newly built BD apartment (48 households) on the site of this case.

From November 22, 2007 to December 11, 2007, registration of ownership preservation for the above 48 households has been made.

(2) Except for the instant shares remaining in the name of the partnership, the registration of site ownership was made to the sectional owners with respect to the remaining shares in the instant site.

The share in this case should have been reverted to each sectional owner in the BD Apartment Nos. 108 and 405, but each sectional owner did not have a right to a site but remains in the name of the partnership.

(3) was such.

arrow