logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2012.02.16 2011가단12329
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 26, 1935, 62 of C, the land category was changed to a road, and the remaining 46 square meters was divided into the said D land, and from that time, the shipbuilding General or Gyeongnam-do occupied and managed the said land as a road, and provided it for the passage of the general public and vehicles.

B. On November 18, 1968, 4 square meters of the above E-land and 14 square meters of the above F-land was divided into the above land on January 25, 197 (hereinafter “instant land”). On January 13, 1977, 197, the instant land was designated as H as a G urban planning road publicly notified at Gyeongnam-do on January 13, 197, and the Defendant occupied, managed, and provided for the passage of the general public and vehicles until now.

C. The land cadastre as to the land before the instant partition is indicated as the assessment of the land before subdivision.

I’s property was inherited to the Plaintiff’s husband through J and K, and upon the death of L on February 18, 1995, the Plaintiff and children entered into an inheritance agreement with the Plaintiff on February 28, 201 that the Plaintiff unilaterally succeeds to the property of L. D.

On the other hand, I, J, K, L, etc., who was the owner of the instant land, did not raise an objection against the Gyeongnam-do or the Defendant, the competent road management authority, even though the land category of the instant land was actually used as a road for the past 1935 years from the previous 1935 to the previous 76 years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Since the instant land was designated as a non-taxable object, there was no amount of property tax paid on the

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, Gap's statements, Gap's 1 through 6, 9, 10, 16, 17, Eul's evidence, Eul's 1 through 8, 111, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim.

arrow