beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) acquired the instant land at a successful bid of KRW 47,119,000,00 in the auction procedure, the Plaintiff acquired the land of KRW 1,121 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) the Defendant, without any title, has a duty to return the said sale price or the road usage fee of KRW 1,60,000 as unjust enrichment.
In addition, since the Defendant neglected the upper part of the road set up on the instant land and caused damages to the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff’s unable to cultivate in the instant land due to soil erosion, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,600,000 to the Plaintiff for the expenses incurred in installing the retaining wall.
2. Determination
A. As to a claim for return of unjust enrichment, it is reasonable to deem that a person who specifically succeeds to the ownership of land, the exercise of the exclusive, exclusive, and beneficial rights by the original owner of the relevant legal doctrine, by auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc., to have acquired the ownership of the land, even though he/she has a burden of restricting such use and profit, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, such specific successor is prohibited from exercising exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from such land.
In such a case, whether there are special circumstances allowing a specific successor to exercise exclusive/exclusive/exclusive/exclusive/exclusive rights to use the land, along with the details and purpose of the acquisition of the land by the specific successor, whether the land was indicated to a certain extent in the appearance through the current use status and land category, etc. of the land, whether the land was subject to restrictions on the use and profit-making of the general public, and whether the price of acquisition of the land in question reflects the decline in property value due to the restriction on the exercise of rights to use and profit-making, and whether the original owner’s gratuitous provision