logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.11.17 2015가단109161
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant

(a) KRW 24,882,00 per annum from August 13, 2015 to November 17, 2015; and

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 26, 1936, Seongbuk-gu Seoul was divided into C and D 66 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) on June 26, 193, and these land was transferred to E on July 12, 1936.

B. The above C transferred ownership to F on March 13, 1939, and was re-divided into C and G on October 23, 1940, and C was merged into H on September 10, 1991.

C. The instant land was transferred to the Plaintiff that succeeded to the said E on April 13, 2007 (the inheritance on January 14, 1964) and was used as the only passage leading to H and G to I roads.

The amount equivalent to the rent from November 2, 2009 to November 1, 2014 concerning the instant land is KRW 24,882,00, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent from July 28, 2015 is KRW 447,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, images of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the result of the appraisal of fees to the appraiser J of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant has occupied the land of this case as a road management agency, such as sharing the land to the general public for traffic, and the defendant has gained a profit equivalent to the rent for the land of this case, and thereby, as E's heir, suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount as the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land of this case.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from November 2, 2009, as requested by the plaintiff.

B. (1) The Defendant’s argument that the land of this case was divided from the above B and provided as a passage. In selling the land to E, K provided the land as a passage, thereby enhancing the utility value of the remaining land.

Therefore, the decedent E renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case.

(2) Facts of recognition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 through 15, and B.

arrow