logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.11 2013가합565178
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) 5,938,00 won and the rate of 20% per annum from December 11, 2013 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 12, 1973, the land category of the instant case was changed from “site” to “road”, and around that time, the Defendant is assigned to and managed as a road under the Road Act, and the Defendant still manages it.

B. On December 25, 1974, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the land of this case owned by the plaintiff without any title is occupied and used as a road. Thus, from August 23, 2008 to the expiration date of the defendant's occupation or the losing date of the plaintiff's ownership, unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent as the actual usage status of the land at the time of incorporation into the road should be returned.

B. (1) Whether a local government is responsible for the return of unjust enrichment (i.e., the occurrence of liability) where a local government possesses and actually provides a local government road traffic, and the owner’s exclusive exclusive use and profit is limited, barring special circumstances, such as where the owner renounced his/her exclusive use and profit-making right to the land, the State or the local government obtains profit from occupying and using the land, and the owner of the land suffers equivalent loss.

B) According to the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1), the Defendant, as the road management authority of the instant land, obtained the benefit equivalent to the rent and incurred the Plaintiff as the owner, thereby incurring the same loss. Thus, as long as the Plaintiff did not assert the legitimate source of right, the Defendant is liable to return the unjust enrichment therefrom to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff waived the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land or succeeded to the Plaintiff by waiver of the exclusive right to use and benefit from the said land (B).

arrow