logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.07.11 2017가단23520
부당이득반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land at a successful bid of KRW 47,119,000 in the auction procedure for the KRW 1,121 square meters prior to Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). Since the Defendant opened and uses the instant land, it is obligated to return the said proceeds from the sale as unjust enrichment.

2. If there is no dispute over judgment, or if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including the serial number) of Eul, the following can be acknowledged: ① the fact that the plaintiff continued to use part of the land of this case as a road before acquiring the land of this case by auction; ② the fact that the information that part of the land of this case is a road of this case was provided through a sale statement, a survey of current status, an appraisal report, etc. during the auction procedure for the land of this case; ③ there is no evidence to deem that the use

In light of this, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment of KRW 47,119,00 for the sole reason that part of the land in this case is being used as a road.

Even if the Plaintiff wants to seek unjust enrichment equivalent to the land usage fee, the above facts may be deemed that the former owner of the instant land provided part of the instant land as a road, thereby granting neighboring residents or the general public the right to access free of charge, or waiver of exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from the portion used as a road among the instant land. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land with knowledge of the fact that the ownership of the instant land was specifically succeeded by auction, and that there was a burden of using and benefitting from the instant land is limited. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that part of the instant land was used as a road.

arrow