logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.11 2018가단5135990
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall attached to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. Each land listed in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter “each land of this case”) is the land incorporated into the Gu B from Yongcheon to North Korea (hereinafter “the land of this case 1 (or 2, 3)”).

Since each land of this case was divided as follows, it has been used as roads until now.

B. On August 20, 1923, the land category of this case was divided from the land in Yongcheon-si, and its category was changed to a road. The land category of this case 2 was divided from D land on August 20, 1923, and its land category was changed to a road. The land category of this case 3 was divided from C land on March 30, 1956 and its land category was changed to a road.

C. On March 2, 1962, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on February 23, 1962 (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”).

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-1-3, 5-1-3, 6-4-12, 7-1-3, and Eul 1's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant occupies each of the land of this case without legitimate acquisition procedure or the plaintiff's consent and uses it as a road.

The Plaintiff, as the owner of each of the instant lands, claimed to the Defendant for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for five years from June 23, 2013 to June 22, 2018, KRW 2,336,790, and delay damages therefor. In addition, from June 23, 2018 to June 23, 2018, the Plaintiff, as the owner of each of the instant lands, sought payment of KRW 50,573 in an amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent accrued from the expiry of occupation due to the Defendant’s road closure or the date of loss of Plaintiff’s ownership

B. The Defendant asserted that each of the instant lands was divided and constructed a road on the ground, after compensating for each of the instant lands under the Land Expropriation Order or the Joseon Road Order, which was enforced at the time of the division of each of the instant lands.

arrow