logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.09.19 2019나10224
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 15, 1965, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 15, 1965 with respect to the land of 220 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). After the death of C on November 1, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in DNA name on September 28, 2017 due to inheritance by agreement division.

B. On December 7, 2017, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on the ground of donation.

C. The instant land is being used until now for the passage of the 53th Slive Sick Team established in Ulsan-gun E in around 1989 (hereinafter “instant military unit”) and neighboring villages, and it is prohibited from entering the said military unit and meritorious services without passing through the said land.

On the other hand, the instant land was subdivided into the land classified as a paddy field on August 16, 1980 and divided into 1,610 square meters in Ulsan-gun Gung-gun, Ulsan-gun on August 16, 198, upon the application of the net C.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the fact-finding results of the 53th Army at the Army of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant without title incorporates the land of this case owned by the plaintiff into the road without permission and occupies and uses it.

Therefore, the Defendant, without any legal ground, suffers property damage by using the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment as stated in the claim.

3. Determination

(a) If the land owner directly provides the land as a road and is actually used as a road for the purpose of the general public, in a case where the land is naturally occurring or is classified into a proposed road site, it is interpreted that the owner has granted the right to free access to the land to neighboring residents or the general public, or has waived the exclusive and exclusive right to use the land.

arrow