logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가단10617
부당이득
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 1963, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Plaintiff’s land. Nonparty D, the Defendant’s attached, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Plaintiff’s land on May 23, 1985, and constructed a single-story house on the land. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Defendant’s land due to inheritance on October 25, 1993, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 8, 201.

B. The Defendant uses the Plaintiff’s land as a road adjacent to the Defendant’s land for contribution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 4-1, Gap evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 3-1, the whole purport of oral argument

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff without any title uses the plaintiff's land without permission for the passage of the defendant's land and the building on its ground, and takes unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent while occupying sewage pipes as underground. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff has a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent from May 23, 1985 to the date of loss of the plaintiff's land ownership.

As to this, the defendant did not own the plaintiff's land exclusively, and since the plaintiff renounced his exclusive right to use and profit from the plaintiff's land, the defendant shall not file a claim for return of unjust enrichment (the defendant has obtained a judgment against the plaintiff's defendant's claim for payment of fees against D, so the lawsuit of this case is unlawful. However, although there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff filed a claim for payment of fees against D, and even if the judgment against the plaintiff has res judicata effect, it is merely a ground for dismissal of the judgment against the plaintiff, it shall not be judged separately as the ground for dismissal).

The Defendant’s land.

arrow