logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2016.11.09 2016가단51882
부당이득금
Text

1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 9,415,90 and KRW 1,693,60 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,600 from January 1, 2012, KRW 1,718,600.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Around December 24, 1984, from B forest land B (the location of real estate shall be indicated only with a lot number not exceeding) 6597m2 (the location of real estate) was divided into C forest land 2116m2, and around 207 and around 2010, D forest land 4429m2 and E forest land 8791m2 was divided.

C Forest land was changed to a road on December 24, 1984 by land category.

B. On June 21, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased D forest land and E forest land and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name.

C. During the period from April 1980 to November 1, 1985, the Korea Rural Community Corporation: (a) performed the packing work on the roads C, including the area of 247 square meters indicated in the separate drawings among D forest land, and the area of 510 square meters in the separate drawings among E forest land (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) around October 1995, the Defendant issued a public announcement on the recognition of the road for the F section including the instant land as the local highway route (H public announcement in Chungcheongnam-do); and (c) has used it as a road provided for the passage of the general public for the sake of passage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 (including branch numbers in the case of provisional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the defendant occupies the land of this case as the management authority, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent for unjust enrichment to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land of this case. 2) As to this, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff purchased the land of this case with the knowledge of the fact that the land of this case is being used as the road, he waived the exclusive right to use and benefit from the

Where a private land is naturally created or is classified as a prospective road site and is actually used as a road for public traffic, the owner of the land directly provides the land as a road and grants the neighboring residents or the general public the right to free of charge.

arrow