beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,460,99 and interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from May 13, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s attached Form before 2010
2. Each of the lands listed in the real estate list (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) acquired co-ownership shares of 134,316/3,00 of 3,480,750, from that time, and owned from that time until the date of closing the argument.
B. Among each of the instant lands, the original land category was 258 square meters and C road 290 square meters (hereinafter “D”), which was changed to a road on November 30, 194. Since the Defendant incorporated the instant D land as part of the site for a road (E) opened around that time, it was entering into a public passage.
C. Among each of the instant lands, the original land category was changed to a road on February 24, 1962, and the Defendant, around that time, incorporated the instant I land into a part of the road site while performing Jorizontal Expansion Construction Works, and thereafter, is entering the same into the general public’s passage.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 13, and 16, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Return of unjust enrichment:
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, since each of the lands of this case was incorporated into the road, obtained profits by occupying and using the above lands, and caused damages to the plaintiff who is the right holder of the right to the land. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of each of the lands of this case to the plaintiff.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1), the Defendant asserted that the land of this case was transferred to the road at the time of transfer, and that the owner acquired ownership by making compensation for the land. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) As to the prescriptive acquisition.