(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.16 2017가단104351

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.16 2017가단104351

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 23, 2006, the Plaintiff is the owner who acquired Seongbuk-gu Seoul Z and 97 square meters of a road (from the next day, the road of this case) as a public auction.

B. The Defendants are owners of AA large of 172 square meters, AB large of 171 square meters, AB large of 171 square meters, and each multi-household house on the ground of 171 square meters around the instant road.

C. The Defendants are using the instant road as a passage to each multi-household house.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts established, the Defendants may be deemed to have made unjust enrichment in the amount equivalent to the rent, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The Defendants asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion is not permissible under the principle of good faith.

According to the above evidence, AC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as AC), the former owner of the instant road, sells a lot of 1,170 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seoul, a land before the division of the instant road, to a road, changed the land category of the instant road to a road, and provided a divided land with free of charge as a passage for the divided land. The Plaintiff is recognized as having purchased the instant road from AC in the public sale process, knowing it on November 23, 2006.

According to the facts of recognition, it is not acceptable to accept as it violates the principle of good faith to allow AC to gratuitously provide the road of this case for passage, and to make a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da40399, Feb. 11, 1992). The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendants removed existing houses and newly built a new building in 2017, it constitutes a case of significant changes in the use situation.

However, there is no change in the basic use situation of the road of this case as a passage, so it cannot be said that there is a significant change to the extent that the defendants' claims should be rejected.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion

참조판례

-대법원 1992. 2. 11. 선고 91다40399 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.12.24 2013가합18656

-의정부지방법원 2015.11.20 2014가단114428

-서울북부지방법원 2019.01.23 2017가단138248

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.31 2018가단5110625