logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2015.09.16 2015가단664
토지인도
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 September 18, 1996, the Plaintiff: (a) changed the ownership of land and divided land; (b) on September 18, 1996, the Plaintiff shall be 1,805 square meters prior to C (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On March 22, 2011, the instant land was divided into three: (a) 204 square meters prior to C, 272 square meters prior to D (hereinafter “D”) and 1,329 square meters prior to E (hereinafter “E land”) on August 22, 1996.

3) On April 18, 2014, Namwon-si completed the registration of ownership transfer on D land due to the acquisition through consultation by public works. B. The Defendant’s land occupation 1) around 2002, occupied and cultivated part of the instant land.

2) The Defendant occupied and cultivated part of the D land up to the time of acquiring the D land at Namwon-si. 3) The Defendant occupied and cultivated part of the 161 land and E land until April 13, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Eul No. 2 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of parties' arguments;

A. As the Plaintiff without any title occupied and cultivated the land 161 and E from March 2, 1998 to April 3, 2015, the Defendant filed a claim for the amount equivalent to the rent for the said land from May 1, 2005 to April 3, 2015, the extinctive prescription period of which has not expired due to the return of unjust enrichment.

B. At around 2002, the Defendant received a recommendation from the Fdong head to dispose of garbage in the instant land and to cultivate the farmland.

Accordingly, the Defendant intended to agree with the owner to cultivate the instant land, but disposed of waste in KRW 800,000 due to the contact, and began to cultivate part of the instant land.

After that, if the plaintiff's husband wants to continue to cultivate and find around 2008, he would pay the user fee, and the previous user fee was agreed to pay the rice 1 math in one year from 2009 without claiming the user fee.

arrow