logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.05.28 2014나30401
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the date of pronouncement of the first instance judgment is “the date of pronouncement of the first instance judgment” as “the date of pronouncement of the first instance judgment,” and it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for addition or dismissal as set forth below 2 and 3. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Of the instant land alleged by the Defendant, it is unreasonable to seek payment of unjust enrichment on the entire land of this case, even though part of the instant land other than the Defendant’s packaging part is a resident’s housing site, and part of the land is included as a road.

B. According to the result of the instant court’s entrustment of measurement and appraisal with respect to the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation, the part used as a parking lot among 1,312 square meters of the instant land is recognized as being 648 square meters of the attached Table 2 appraisal map.

However, in full view of the overall purport of the statements or videos and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), it can be recognized that the entire land of this case is packed in concrete and used as roads for the convenience of residents, sports facilities, parking lots, and access roads to parking lots.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant occupies and uses the entire land of this case by providing it to the general public for use.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Forms 3 through 6 of the fifth decision of the first instance shall be taken in the following manner:

“However, the Plaintiff sought payment of interest or delay damages on the above unjust enrichment from January 1, 2010. However, since the obligation to return unjust enrichment is a debt for which the due date has not been specified, the obligor is liable for delay only after receiving the claim for performance (Article 387(2) of the Civil Act, and on February 26, 2013, the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

arrow